Article on the origins of 1841 $2-1/2 's and other related coins of the 1840's (incl. Half Cents)
CaptHenway
Posts: 33,105 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just read this fascinating article on Coin Week by Roger Burdette:
https://coinweek.com/origins-of-1841-quarter-eagles-and-similar-coins/
It explains how the U.S. Mint began exchanging sets of coins with other countries around 1840 to enhance the Mint Cabinet of Coins. The 1841 Quarter Eagles may have been struck simply to help some of the exchanges come out close to even gold vs. gold and silver vs. silver.
As I read the article, which mentions Half Cents being included in sets, it occurred to me that these exchange sets are very possibly the reason why the Mint first began striking Proof-only Half Cents starting in 1840. One might assume that once collectors found out about them, they kept bugging the Mint to buy them, and the Mint obliged by restriking them from various dies for many years.
There is also an interesting section about the Mint selling restrikes, INCLUDING AN 1804 DOLLAR, in 1843.
Enjoy!
TD
Comments
Good read, thanks for posting. I wonder if any other countries have some of these exchange coins still around in museums etc.
That's awesome. I get the sense that the Mint made the coins in anticipation of those foreign exchanges. Is there a record for where the first recorded sale of an 1841 $2.50 was sourced from?
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
Per John Dannreuther's fabulous two-volume set on Proof Gold: Bangs 7/12/1860 sale, Lot 110, graded VF.
I am guessing that that would be a Proof-50 today.
Curiously, several 1841 $2-1/2's are known circulated, which might bolster the explanation that they were distributed to non-numismatic recipients.
That's fascinating in the sense that the late 1850s and 1860s were a time for numismatic restrikes and yet I doubt such a coin could be worn down to VF so quickly. What are the chances the other coins purposely made for foreign exchange weren't recorded on the books either?
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
As I said, their VF is probably not our VF.
That was a fascinating article. Thank you for posting it and to Roger Burdette for writing it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know! Had you ever heard about this exchange program? I hadn't.
No, I hadn’t - it was new news to me and a great read.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
“Based on available documentary evidence, it is the author’s opinion that 1841 quarter eagles, and most other proof coins of the 1840s were part of the duplicate set exchange with other countries described above.”
Claim is that Mint’s obtaining foreign coins for assay from State Department officials abroad, which were paid/settled directly between Treasury & State, proves that “most” proof coins of the 1840s were struck for diplomatic purposes? Article is a bit disjointed, why I posited that as a general question—to no one specific.
“The trend after 1839 is for increasing use of the sets, sometimes including gold, to exchange for similar sets of national coins and for foreign and ancient coins that were available from business and private sources. “
No citation is provided. My own research into State Department records for the 19th Century do show requests for diplomatic presentation sets, beginning with Muscat etc. –but only sporadically, until it became more prevalent in the 1870s. I saw no “trend after 1839,” and article offers no evidence/information to support that claim.
Think it more than a reach to spin one (mostly) coin for coin exchange with one State Department Consular over the course of 1840-42, and the request for one diplomatic presentation set for China circa 1840, as some kind of “duplicate exchange program” driving “most” of the proof coinage of the 1840s.
Pulled many cites, or at least tried, before giving up. Bunch of miscitations —e.g. footnote 47 is one example. I think I found the actual document referred to (miscited and incorrect date attributed), which is attached. That just shows Mint asking for reimbursement from State for coins for the Cabinet--not assay (will spare any reader from peeling that onion to include all back-and-forth correspondence over 2 years to show that). Miscitations, to me, are not trivial.
I saw no evidence to support the striking of proof quarter eagles in 1841 in exchange for foreign assay samples or diplomatic pieces. Mint records—to November 1841—show no striking of quarter eagles up to then. Have not come across records for December 1841, but then again, have not thoroughly looked.
1841 Assay was reported to Congress on February, 19 1842. So, 1841 proof quarter eagles were struck for an American Foreign Officer in an unidentified country sometime in Nov/Dec. 1841 in time to obtain exemplars for the foreign coin assay of 1841? That would be a rather remarkable accomplishment--in the age of sail. Also, where are Mint, Treasury, State, Presidential, foreign, or personal papers, showing any indication of that? If that happened, why wasn't it settled between Treasury & State per policy? Think it highly unpersuasive to write a piece specifically titled “Origins of 1841 Quarter Eagles and Similar Coins”, spin a rather imaginative web, yet produce zero evidence the 1841 was struck for diplomatic/assay purposes.
Stickney’s 1843 exchange is very well known—since his letter of 1859. So too are 1840s and later exchanges/requests from others in the “Mint Cabinet Inner Circle.” Unclear, to me, why private exchanges with the Cabinet are intermixed with claims of diplomatic strikes. I read that as undercutting the author's imaginative primary thesis.
At least some of the activities of the Mint Cabinet are known (1858 Mint Cabinet inventory notes one 1841 quarter eagle, designated exceedingly rare). Given what is known, I am not persuaded that foreign considerations were the/a material factor why “most” 1840s proofs were struck.
Roger can, and no doubt will, speak for himself regarding your comments, but speaking for myself I question your interpretation of the article to say that the Proofs in question of 1840-on were struck for diplomatic purposes.
In my mind the "diplomatic Proof coins" were the sets produced in 1834-35 at the request of the State Department specifically for the purpose of making presents to foreign monarchs that the State Department wished to establish diplomatic relations with.
As I understand the current article in question, the U.S. Mint on its own initiative instigated the exchanges mentioned in it with foreign Treasuries and/or Mints partly for the purpose of obtaining sets of coins that could be tested to fulfill the Mint's obligation to establish the values of foreign gold and silver coins, and partly to obtain specimens of foreign coinage for placement in the Mint Cabinet of coins.
There was nothing "diplomatic" about them, other than that the Mint/ Treasury Dept. used the good offices of the State Department to obtain coins overseas, and the diplomatic pouch system of the State Department to convey those coins to the United States more safely than the mails of the day, and to safely convey the exchange coins back to the foreign Treasuries and/or Mints.
Assuming that this is the correct interpretation of the article, I would not not be surprised if the State Department retained no records of this courtesy performed for the Treasury Dept. 185 years ago.
TD
Apart from the purely speculative nature of the claim---author maintains duplicate sets were obtained by the Mint from U.S. foreign officers in 1839/40--one for the Mint Cabinet, one for Assay. List is in the article.
("Although officially the coins were for assays required to create official lists of foreign coin values in U.S. dollars, Patterson had significant interest in expanding the Mint Cabinet").
Added problem to those previously mentioned is the listed coins do not match the foreign ones actually contemporaneously assayed in 1840/41. That presents a rather- large- problem. Article also fails to recognize an assay was not required of most, if not all, the foreign coins it listed in support of its hypothesis.
Would think--especially given the dearth of evidence offered in support-- a check on what coins were actually assayed would be done. But it seems it was not.
Unless something more than speculation is provided, don’t think any further look is called for. No doubt the Cabinet was being built, in its own peculiar way. But assay angle, and an "exchange program"--leading to the striking of "most" proofs, is unsupported. And--this statement is a hunch--unnecessary given the Cabinet's known unusual activities.
1840 & 1841 Assays follow in order: