Jacob Perkins Did Not Make the Washington Born Virginia medal - I can prove it
CoinNewBee
Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
After 9 years of research I have found documented proof that Perkins didn’t make the Washington Born Virginia medal or the 1792 dated Washington President cent coins. I have written an article with all the documentation.
This does disprove many current author’s books and articles and has been rejected for that, not because it doesn’t prove what it states. This article is entirely based on documents from the US Archives, British Archive, US Founders letters, the London and Birmingham England issues of Gazette news paper, British bankruptcy court and the British probate court documents. A current notable colonial historian author has read it and called it fascinating and important and endorsed it, but it was rejected anyway.
Any suggestion on what I can do? Is there anyone reading this who would like to look into to publishing this?
Always more to know!
Comments
There are multiple places that can publish your article. If one didn’t take it, I’d ask why and there’s anything you can do. If not, I’d try to find another and another. If no one takes it, you can always self-publish which is pretty easy today.
I would have to agree with Zoins.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Post it here so we can discuss
Rejected by whom and for what reason? I doubt they gave you the reason you suggest.
There's a lot of reasons "they" might reject an article even if the research is accurate. It could be poorly written. It might not fit into their market. They might consider it either unimportant or uninteresting to their readers.
Try a different journal or one of the colonial clubs who might put out in their newsletter.
Here are a few excerpts for the article, beginning with the introduction to the article and one section. The article goes on the show documents of John Westwood's death in December 1791 that coincided with his second bankruptcy. John Westwood's will and the probate of the will that continued until March 3, 1792. The probate prevented Obadiah Westwood from using his brothers mint until well after the coins of this Washington group had been delivered to George Washington. That timing is confirmed by Obadiah in a notice he places in the Birmingham Gazette on March 19, 1792. There is much more, that by exactly matching the descriptions given by Thomas Digges in his letters of the two coins he was given by the Walker brothers in Birmingham, with the coins in this group - it proves one could only have been the Washington Born Virginia coin.
Excerpt Introduction: The origin of the Washington Born Virginia Medals, the 1791 and 1792 date Washington President Cents.
Every author who has addressed the history and the origin of this iconic class of colonial coins have written based on the best documentation available at the time. In the last few years online search engines have opened access to original documents in libraries and government archives that are digitized and made available in pdf form. The increased accessibility of original documents has made this article possible.
This article presents a detailed examines of U.S. and British archives’ letters and documents of the time addressing these coins, the physical details of the coins themselves, including the letter punches, as well as the Washington Born Virginia medal’s die at the ANA Museum. The careful examination of this information results in a contradiction with the current belief that American inventor and coiner Jacob Perkins created all but two of these coins. There are design details that have not previously been identified on these coins revealing new varieties within this group of coins. The physical dimensions of Washington Born Virginia medal’s die at the ANA Museum definitively show it to be a copy die that could not have been used to strike a medal.
...
Excerpt:
THE NICOLAS PIKE LETTER
On February 29, 1792, Nicolas Pike of Newburyport wrote the following letter to George Washington presenting him with an unspecified medal made by an unspecified person.
Newbury Port [Mass.] February 29th, 1792
Sir, I have the honor to request your Acceptance of a Medal struck in my presence by an ingenious &
reputable Gentleman, who also made the Die, which branch he can execute with great facility & dispatch, & which he will warrant to stand until defaced by usage.
He, at present, declines having his name made public; but should this Specimen of Ingenuity intitle him to the Notice of Congress, he would be happy, on suitable Terms, to serve the Public in this line.
He is sufficiently acquainted with the Principles of Drawing to take a good Impression from the Life— With the most cordial Gratitude & Esteem, I have the honor to be, Sir, your obliged & very humble Servant
Nicolas Pike
P.S. The Gentleman wishes, Sir, that this Medal may not get into the hands of an Engraver.
There is no reference or evidence in this letter identifying the medal or naming the coiner. John Kraljevich’s article (August of 2010 The Numismatist) that the Pike letter is referring to Jacob Perkins based on the fact that they both lived in Newburyport Massachusetts in 1792. He states Perkins made the dies of the Washington Born Virginia medal after having somehow seen a medal made by James Manly (circa 1789). Having seen the Manly medal he says Perkins copied its obverse motto, but with his own portrait and the reverse inscriptions almost exactly thus creating the Perkins Washington Born Virginia medal that was sent to the President by Pike. Moreover, Kraljevich states that Perkins also saw the John G. Hancock 1791 dated Washington President One Cent coin with the large eagle reverse. It's said Perkins again copied Hancock’s obverse and reverse almost exactly only replacing the One Cent inscription above the eagle on the reverse with an arc of 13 stars becoming the Perkins’ 1792 Washington President coins.
Kraljevich acknowledges in the article that attributing the Washington Born Virginia to Perkins is only speculative when he states,
“Is it possible that the person Pike mentions in his letter as having made the die and struck the enclosed piece in his presence is someone other than Perkins? Independent of all other evidence (i.e., if this letter existed in a vacuum), I would feel comfortable attesting in court there is no other likely candidate. … It just so happens there is only one medal dated 1792 that could be the piece in question.”
The Pike letter does not exist in a vacuum. His reasoning for it being a Perkins medal is factually flawed on two counts. First, the Washington Born Virginia medal is undated, and the date attributed is undocumented, therefore a guess not a fact. Second is that there are three Washington President Cent coins in this group that Kraljevich attributes to Perkins that are in fact dated 1792 on the coins. The article presents no documentation to support any of its statements or events. There is documentation in this letter and others discussed in depth in this article that will show the Washington Born Virginia medal was not made by Perkins.’
Little is known about the origin of the James Manly Medal reportedly the source of Perkins’ design of the Washington Born Virginia medal. James Manly appears to have arrived at America in 1789 bringing the dies of his medal with him in an unfinished state. In 1790, while in Philadelphia Manly had the dies completed by Samuel Brooks. Starting in September of 1790 the Manly medal was widely advertised as a souvenir with notices of its sale in newspapers across the major cities of this country. According to John Kraljevich, Jacob Perkins had Nicolas Pike send the Washington Born Virginia medal he’d copied from Manly’s medal to the President. It makes no sense that Perkins would send President Washington an almost exact copy of the previously widely advertised Manly medal as his application to be appointed to a position at the new U.S. Mint.
THE MANLY MEDAL
George Washington was elected President with a unanimous electoral college vote on February 4, 1789, and he began his first term on April 30, 1789. To both celebrate and profit from the election of the first American President, Birmingham England diesinkers began making Washington commemorative medals. Three of these celebratory medals would be the Twiggs' medal, the Manly medal and the Washington Born Virginia medal all of whose dates currently attributed to them are educated guesses, not facts. It is very possible that the dies for the Washington Born Virginia medal were made with the intention to be a commemorative Washington medal done in 1789, and then repurposed to a more profitable use into the U.S. coining competition later in early 1791. John Kraljevich came to a similar conclusion of it being a commemorative piece by saying,
“…what about the Washington Born Virginia piece? The fact that its legends do not comply at all with the federal coinage legislation, despite the use of the bust of Washington as the other patterns, suggests it was produced as a medal celebrating the President, essentially a souvenir.”
The Washington Born Virginia medal could easily have been seen by Manly first in 1789 and copied while living in Birmingham before he left for the U.S. at the end of that year. Shortly after arriving in the U.S. Manly encountered David Humphreys in New York on February 8, 1790, as Humphreys was departing New York and asked his opinion of the events on the reverse of his medal. Humphreys not confirming the events, was asked by Manly to please write to Washington and ask him about those events in his life and then write Manly back at the first convenance once Washington replied. Manly had already written a letter for Washington, accompanied with a lead impression of the unfinished medal that he had with him, which he asked Humphreys to include in the letter he would write to President Washington about the reverse inscription. After encountering Humphreys, James Manly apparently couldn’t wait any longer and wrote to Washington himself on February 13, 17907. That letter directly asked Washington to confirm the accuracy of the events on the reverse of the medal, one of which he included in his letter as well. Washington’s secretary, Mr. Lear replied only with a thank you for the medal8.
The idea that Manly copied the medal is bolstered by these letters written almost immediately upon his arrival when he began trying to verify the chronology of Washington’s life events that are listed on the reverse of his medal. That seems a very odd thing to do after the fact, if you’re the one who cut that list of events into your own die, unless it was a copy of someone else’s work you needed to verify.
...
The John Kraljevich article goes on to propose that Jacob Perkins also saw John G. Hancock’s 1791 date Washington President One Cent coin with the large eagle reverse, which he also copied. He says Perkins copied the obverse and reverse almost exactly except for replacing the One Cent over the eagle on the reverse with 13 stars in an arc over the eagle’s head. That led to a number of Perkins’ mulings that comprise the 1792 dated Washington Cent coin group created an array of Washington coins that included the gold Washington President coin with the eagle and stars above reverse.
Pike says,
Sir, I have the honor to request your Acceptance of a Medal struck in my presence by an ingenious & reputable Gentleman, who made the Die...
The letter says he only sent one coin, that is said by Kraljevich to have been the copper Washington Born Virginia coin with the General of Armies reverse. We cannot escape logic in this consideration and that would make no sense for Perkins to have sent a copper coin if he had made a gold coin as well.
It is a simple fact that there is no documentation or logic to support that Perkins made any of those Washington cent coins.
Always more to know!
Rejected by the reviewer. The reason stated was it contradicted the John Kraljevich article of August of 2010 in The Numismatist. Yes it does.
Always more to know!
Have you discussed this with John Kraljevich? It might be nice to do so as John could change his point of view based on your information.
I have not done that. I hadn't even considered that but it's a great suggestion. I believe I could contact him thru his store website.
Thank you Zion.
Always more to know!
Why was it rejected? The editor should have given you a reason and not simply because it breaks from current understanding. You may have to get written reviews that support publication from several respected numismatic researchers.
I see they gave you a reason, though it may not be valid. I'd send a copy to Kraljevich and discuss your research paper with him. If neither agrees on the best argument, then discuss the possibility of writing separate articles or a series of articles in point-counterpoint fashion arguing each side in a reputable numismatic journal or newspaper. There's a tradition of these types of published debates in the sciences.
Here's a question, what's the best place to publish a paper like this?
Is the American Journal of Numismatics published by the ANS the most scholarly journal?
Let us know if you discuss the issue with John K., the data is certainly interesting. Cheers, RickO
@CoinNewBee The Journal of Early American Numismatics (JEAN) would be a better fit for this, also published by the ANS. You're more than welcome to send it to me or Christopher McDowell (the editor of JEAN).
Jesse C. Kraft, Ph.D.
Resolute Americana Curator of American Numismatics
American Numismatic Society
New York City
Member of the American Numismatic Association (ANA), British Numismatic Society (BNS), New York Numismatic Club (NYNC), Early American Copper (EAC), the Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4), U.S. Mexican Numismatic Association (USMNA), Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC), Token and Medal Society (TAMS), and life member of the Atlantic County Numismatic Society (ACNS).
Become a member of the American Numismatic Society!
Hi Barberian,
I sent it to The Numismatist on the suggestion of Robert Julian. The reviewer who the editor used rejected it because it contradicted Mr Kraljevich. That was the reason he states. Once rejected Robert Julian argued your point to the editor that they should publish this paper as they had Kraljevich’s so that readers could compare for themselves. I understand that the editor was in the process of leaving and I don’t know how or if that impacted the decision. The Kraljevich article was written based on his interpretation of the letter to Washington from Nicholas Pike. I don’t know how I’d debate the facts I have that contradict the assumptions he uses to come to his conclusions. He provides no documents, only assumptions. I don’t know if the forum reader here have read his article. I’d ask that you do, and compare it to the small excerpt of my article I’ve posted here that directly addresses his primary assumption reasoning for attributing the Washington Born Virginia to Perkins. His states that Perkins saw and copied the Washington Born Virginia medal made by Manly and that somehow his copy of that Washington Born Virginia medal made Perkins the originator. I can not follow that logic and don’t know how to debate it. I use documented facts to prove all the statements I make in the introduction of my article I’ve posted here. As I’ve thought about suggestion here from some to involve Kraljevich, I’m not sure why I’d need Kraljevich to endorse the facts in my article, facts are facts. I would be very pleased to discuss any facts he may have that he didn’t disclose that support his conclusion, this article is my counter-point to him.
The feedback I’ve gotten from this forum has been very, very helpful.
Always more to know!
Glad you brought this historical subject here. Thanks to everyone for sharing ideas. I need this to learn. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Jesse,
Thank you. I will send it to both of you.
Always more to know!
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the history of coins to make such judgments. I suggest finding people who are able to review your's and his papers.
I have no experience with the medallic issue or people involved, so here are just a few random ramblings from an uninvolved party...
It seems that you are challenging the conventional wisdom, and that is always difficult. Even if you are correct, you will have to deal with, among other things, bruised egos and perceived attacks on someone's reputation or stature in their field.
I tried to read through all your posts - to be honest it was a bit difficult due to the formatting, but I am assuming you make better use of paragraphs in your actual article...
What I did get out of it is two things: first, you did a lot of research, and second, you name names pretty liberally, which might make some people a little defensive. You are challenging a well-established and well-respected person in his field, so don't expect a warm reception.
Also, these passages stuck out for me:
"Logic" is a good thing, but is not proof. And lack of "documentation or logic" is also not proof. It seems there is a bit of well-reasoned speculation involved.
Of course, the main proponent on the other side of the issue also does not seem to have "proof", so it is a battle between two true believers in their own position.
I would take some or all advice that other posters have offered. Shop it around, self-publish, etc.
I would also consider opening a friendly dialogue with Mr. Kraljevich, but you seemed to be dismissive toward that idea when you said:
From that passage it seems that you are being confrontational. Are you more interested in contributing to the knowledge base, or winning an argument?
Never thought or knew about this issue.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Pete
Hi JBK,
I don’t see this as an argument, it’s all about facts and facts, not assumptions showing a documented history. The excerpts are a small part of this article and I do appreciate that posting the excerpts out of context would not be as clear as in the paper. Yes that excerpt is facts that show the illogic of sending the President a copy of a medal already widely advertised across the whole country for two years as your resume.
John Kraljevich deserves the respect he holds in this community. His article was written based on his knowledge base in 2010. Only a part of this article addresses his article, but that smaller portion was the only reason stated as the rejection.
You’re right about all the head winds! The headwinds are the reason I decided to do this post here. I’ve found this forum very helpful and informative with very thoughtful members. Hopefully this will eventually be published so readers can see the other newly found history about these coins having nothing to do with John Kraljevich.
Always more to know!
This being the computer age I guess the best opportunities for dissemination are at least partly online.
But there is always the pamphlet or booklet route to start to get it out onto people's hands.
It may take a while to engage the powers that be.
Being correct, convincing others, and getting your ideas published..... those are three different things. I have nothing to add other than wishing you good luck.
The rejection of a scholastic article because an editor disagrees with the findings goes against the entire purpose of scholastic journals. Scholastic journals have, for centuries, published different sides of a scientific argument. That leaves room for other scholars to either reject the idea or provide additional evidence to support it. The peers then publish their findings, often in the same journal as the original writer.
I will send this article to Christopher McDowell, the editor of JEAN as well as to one other offer to review the article. JEAN does seem to be the best journal for this paper. I hope this is the road to publication. I’m truly grateful for this opportunity and the advice of all participants in the post.
You folks are smart dudes and living up to your reputation.
Always more to know!
Hi @CoinNewBee,
I sent you a few Direct Messages. Not trying to rush you, but just want to make sure you get them.
Jesse C. Kraft, Ph.D.
Resolute Americana Curator of American Numismatics
American Numismatic Society
New York City
Member of the American Numismatic Association (ANA), British Numismatic Society (BNS), New York Numismatic Club (NYNC), Early American Copper (EAC), the Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4), U.S. Mexican Numismatic Association (USMNA), Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC), Token and Medal Society (TAMS), and life member of the Atlantic County Numismatic Society (ACNS).
Become a member of the American Numismatic Society!
Journal of Early American Numismatics or the publication of C4, Colonial Coin collectors club would definitely be the bes venues.
The reviewer who the editor used rejected it because it contradicted Mr Kraljevich.
like Copperwire said, isn't new research supposed to challenge old research?? as long as you've provided reference to your sources and they are legitimate the article should be accepted no matter who it impugns.
John K would be the first person who would willingly refute his own prior work based on new evidence. By all means reach out to him.
This article has been submitted to the Journal of Early American Numismatics. John K is a reviewer with them. I've informed them that I have no objection to John reviewing my paper, who better evaluate the section that has to do with his conclusions. After all, I got to review his since it was public.
I don't know him and as a stranger I'd have no grounds to have directly asked him to review this article.
Always more to know!
@CoinNewBee glad to hear, looking forward to hearing more
Now we're getting somewhere!
(Hopefully).
How do you address the issue of the obverse die from the Washington born Virginia being passed down in the Perkin's family?
Excerpt from Article:
The ANA Museum Washington Born Virginia die - a copy die
A Washington Born Virginia obverse die was in the possession of Miss Adelaide W. Currier of Newburyport, MA, a direct descendent of Jacob Perkins’ sister, Jane. In the Greville and Dorothy Bathe book on Jacob Perkins, Miss Currier describes that die as “striking Washington’s Mortuary Medal, 1799”. Miss Currier was mistaken about the purpose of the die. Regardless of that mistake, the fact remains that she did have a Washington Born Virginia obverse die. This does not contradict the facts that the Washington Born Virginia medal was made in Birmingham, England, as shown. The explanation is known and described in the E-Sylum: Volume 5, Number 9, February 2002, Article 10, titled Perkins Bank Bills Test, 1809 written by George Fuld.
_“In the summer of 1959, I realized that Perkins was from Newburyport, and thought his family might still reside there…I made an appointment to see what numismatic items they might own. … The other item was a copy of the original Hancock die of the Washington Born Virginia coin of 1792.”
As to how an English die of 1792 came into Perkins’ possession is problematic. Perkins was in England about 1805, and because of his engraving interest probably knew Obadiah Westwood and his mentee John Hancock. They must have given him this obverse die a souvenir.” _(Emphasis added)
Numismatics expert George Fuld’s opinion upon seeing the die was that the die in Miss Currier’s possession was a copy of the original Washington Born Virginia die. This opinion was also held by Walter Breen. Fuld and Breen’s opinion on the origin of the die as being brought back as a souvenir gift by Perkins to Newburyport from England has currently been summarily dismissed. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary, both Breen and Fuld’s expert opinions of it as being a copy brought back to Newburyport by Perkins stand as strongly as any other opinion. In fact, a careful study of the die itself, and knowledge of the physical and dimensional requirements for a die to be functionally able to strike a coin, proves this to be a copy die.
For any die to strike a coin, the top and bottom surfaces must be perfectly parallel in all 360 degrees. The dimensions measured by the ANA Museum for each side from the die’s base to the top of the image surface are seen here confirming that your eyes are not lying, the base is not parallel to the top. In the book, The Art and Craft of Coinmaking. A History of Minting Technology by Denis R. Cooper, the chapter on the manufacture of dies and associated tools in 1780–1936, on pages 163–164, discusses in detail the die-making techniques used at the time Perkins would have cut this die.
_“…the overall length between the engraving and the base had to be controlled within exact limits to fit the circular die holder in the presses. By the end of the eighteenth-century lathes were available for this, and mints and die manufactures all had their own ideas on the optimum body shape. Machining the base and body true to the engraving surface was a highly skilled task for the center-lathe operator. An eighteen-pin chuck was generally used to hold the stuck die and it was laborious to set the edge of the engraving to run both at right angles and true to the line of the lathe.”
Cooper’s description clearly stresses the necessity for a working die to be made with the top image surface precisely parallel with the die’s base. The ANA die has a top image surface that is clearly several degrees off-parallel with its base in several directions. Those misaligned die surfaces would not permit that die to strike a coin without breaking or deforming itself. The process of striking a coin entails many tons of instantaneous impact required to strike a die’s image onto the coin’s planchet. When the image surface and base are not parallel the entire initial force of the hammer die strike will be at the highest point on the image die’s surface and that would be catastrophic to that die. Moreover, there would be the copper planchet of the coin to be struck between these striking dies. That copper planchet, being so soft in comparison to the steel dies striking it, would completely flatten and spread at that point of first impact between the high point of the image dies’ surface and the impacting hammer die instead of transferring an image to the planchet.
The photo is of the Washington Born Virginia die at the ANA museum. As you see the top image surface is several degrees off of being parallel to the base. This die could never have struck a coin. It would have destroyed itself with the first strike.
Always more to know!
Is there a photo of the face of this die available?
I see the dimensional discrepancies you are referring to, and I understand the dynamics involved. But what I don't know is whether or not press operators had/have a way to accommodate such discrepancies. Could they have used metal shims or wedges to seat the die evenly? I'd like you hear @dcarr 's reaction to this.
I know that some people reported that their 2021 Morgan dollars were struck with dies that were seated at an angle so that one half of the coin was slightly thinner than the other half. That seems to show that uneven die installation and use can occur, even today.
The die face would presumably tell the story. It would either match struck examples or it wouldn't.
A wedge could be used to level the die face. But that arrangement is prone to errors in production. The photo of the die in question does not appear to be very suitable for striking. Why wouldn't the user of the die just grind the bottom of the die so that it is parallel to the face ? I could do that pretty easily just using my relatively crude bench grinder. They did have rotating blade sharpeners back in the day, I think. But there is a reason that the bottom of the die might be on a slant. If you had a large wedge (bigger than the base of the die) that wedge could be positioned in such a way to level the die face AND raise or lower the position of the die face in relation to the coin press and the other die. My 1986 Denver Mint surplus coin press actually has a pair of opposing wedges under the lower die anvil, for the purpose or raising or lowering the vertical position of the lower anvil (and thus, the position of the lower die face). Without seeing quality pictures of the die face and the die bottom I can not determine if the die was actually used or not. But the one picture doesn't look quite right for a usable die.
I have not seen any of these "uneven" modern Morgan Dollars. So the following is conjecture:
When viewing the edge of a coin it may look thicker on one side than the other. But this doesn't mean the coin is actually thicker on that side. It is probably the case that the rims just rose up higher in one area due to lateral positioning of the dies and the design elements on the dies. In other words, wire rims are rarely uniform in height across the entire coin.
Thx @dcarr ! That's great information.
Hi JBK,
That photo in my previous post of the off-parallel die is the actual Washington Born Virginia die that was donated to the ANA museum by Albert Collis. This die was never able to strike a coin. It is not parallel to the base on any plain. I flipped the view of the profile above to face left so that I could use it in PhotoShop to overlay the image of an actual Washington Born Virginia medal. The die does not match the medal. There are MANY image details on the actual medal that are entirely missing on the die. As you know, an empty area on a die image will be an empty spot on the coin - not in this case - this cannot be the original die. The image on the square die does exactly match the image on the rectangle die but neither exactly match an actual coin image.
The ANA museum curator Mr. Mudd sent me these picture as well as this top view of the die. This photo is the image surface of that die. This die is not the die used by Collis to strike the Collis Washington Born Virginia re-strikes you see sold on eBay. The die in the form of the rectangular bar is the transfer and is the die Albert Collis used to strike his copies that are sold. That rectangular die was sold by Heritage Auction several years back. The auction description graded the die's image as only AU - a transfer of a circulated coin.
You'll also notice one other thing about the die image surface picture above - the image is not cut square into the die's block base, it rotated out of square. There is no working die I've ever seen that was not cut squarely into the steel block.
Always more to know!
Often time when early dies were made some didn't work out for whatever reason. This die might have failed or the rigging was different or it was never used. Or it was made badly for some reason or not completed and not used and then kept.
The die really is incredibly beautiful!!!
Thanks for showing the photographs.