Options
"Soft Copper" and Other Myths of the Mint
Rittenhouse
Posts: 565 ✭✭✭
I found tjkillian's "trivia" thread quite interesting. I did, however, spot one long-standing myth: that of the "soft copper" for the 1808 - 1814 large cents.
tjkillian's wrote " Large cents from 1808 through 1814 are very soft having few metallic impurites than those earlier or later. This causes those cents to wear very fast and hence the price is higher for the better grades."
This myth appears to have been started (or at least perpetuated) by Walter Breen - numismatic mythologist extrodinaire. From the "Lord St. Oswald" coins to the mintage for 1799s (debunked & removed from the Redbook by me), "soft copper" and other tales, Walter often preferrred a great story over fact.
So, what's the fact of the 08 - 14 cents? The real reason for the scarcity of higher grades is that they were largely melted during the War of 1812 when copper soared to twice the face value. The proof comes from no less source that the Annals of Congress. In 1816 Representative Erastus Root of New York stated that cents were being taken directly from the Mint (and from circulation) “for the purpose of being melted up for sheets, bolts, or stills, etc.”
Further proof resides in the source of the copper, the cents of 1807, and the half cent issues of 1808 - 1811. The source of the copper for the 1808 - 1814 cents was the same as that since 1797 and after 1814 - Matthew Boulton. Seems a bit odd that copper from the same source would suddenly change for a short discreet period of years 1808 - 1814, and then revert again in 1816! Addtionally, all of the 1808 and many of the 1809 cents found in the poor condition described by supporters of this myth come form the same shipment of Oct. 1807 used to strike 1807 cents, which suffer no such defects.
And, the half cent issues of 1808 - 1811, which likewise come from Boulton and were shipped at the same time as the cent planchets, are plentiful in higher grades. The answer being that fewer half cents were issued and the melters would haved much preferred the larger cent piece to half cents (less wastage during melting).
In all, I estimated that 7 to 8 million cents were melted as a result of the price spike during the war of 1812 (see "The Mass Melting of the Early Copper Coinage" in the Nov. 15, 1999 issue of Penny-Wise). Given this amount it's a minor miracle that any of the cents survive.
-----------
Some other myths:
The "Droz presses"? In reality Jean-Pierre Droz never supplied screw presses to the early Mint; they were all of domestic origin.
Adam Eckfeldt engraving the 1793 half cents? NOPE! Mint records in the National Archives show that Voigt was the engraver.
"Bad die steel" as the cause for the failure of early dies? Again a myth. Mint records and other historical records show that the problem was the Mint's unfamiliarity with die forging.
Boulton supplying die steel? Mint records in the National Archives show that local Philadelphia importers were the source.
Add your own "Mint Tales and Truth"..........
tjkillian's wrote " Large cents from 1808 through 1814 are very soft having few metallic impurites than those earlier or later. This causes those cents to wear very fast and hence the price is higher for the better grades."
This myth appears to have been started (or at least perpetuated) by Walter Breen - numismatic mythologist extrodinaire. From the "Lord St. Oswald" coins to the mintage for 1799s (debunked & removed from the Redbook by me), "soft copper" and other tales, Walter often preferrred a great story over fact.
So, what's the fact of the 08 - 14 cents? The real reason for the scarcity of higher grades is that they were largely melted during the War of 1812 when copper soared to twice the face value. The proof comes from no less source that the Annals of Congress. In 1816 Representative Erastus Root of New York stated that cents were being taken directly from the Mint (and from circulation) “for the purpose of being melted up for sheets, bolts, or stills, etc.”
Further proof resides in the source of the copper, the cents of 1807, and the half cent issues of 1808 - 1811. The source of the copper for the 1808 - 1814 cents was the same as that since 1797 and after 1814 - Matthew Boulton. Seems a bit odd that copper from the same source would suddenly change for a short discreet period of years 1808 - 1814, and then revert again in 1816! Addtionally, all of the 1808 and many of the 1809 cents found in the poor condition described by supporters of this myth come form the same shipment of Oct. 1807 used to strike 1807 cents, which suffer no such defects.
And, the half cent issues of 1808 - 1811, which likewise come from Boulton and were shipped at the same time as the cent planchets, are plentiful in higher grades. The answer being that fewer half cents were issued and the melters would haved much preferred the larger cent piece to half cents (less wastage during melting).
In all, I estimated that 7 to 8 million cents were melted as a result of the price spike during the war of 1812 (see "The Mass Melting of the Early Copper Coinage" in the Nov. 15, 1999 issue of Penny-Wise). Given this amount it's a minor miracle that any of the cents survive.
-----------
Some other myths:
The "Droz presses"? In reality Jean-Pierre Droz never supplied screw presses to the early Mint; they were all of domestic origin.
Adam Eckfeldt engraving the 1793 half cents? NOPE! Mint records in the National Archives show that Voigt was the engraver.
"Bad die steel" as the cause for the failure of early dies? Again a myth. Mint records and other historical records show that the problem was the Mint's unfamiliarity with die forging.
Boulton supplying die steel? Mint records in the National Archives show that local Philadelphia importers were the source.
Add your own "Mint Tales and Truth"..........
0
Comments
Frank
Tom
1. If the cents were melted in 1812, why are the prices for for pre-1808 lower than later?
A: Most of the melting involved merchants and manufacturers going directly to the Mint and buying kegs. Quite efficient actually. The copper price see-sawed wildly in the tensions leading up to and thru the "War of 1812". Significant melting took place as early as late 1808, but by that time most of the pre-1808 cents were farily well dispersed, although some of them were certainly culled from circulation by enterprising individuals and melted. So, the answer is simply one of survivorship - with most of the pre-1808 cents already in circulation, they largely excaped the melting.
2. Why are there so few 1814 cents?
A: Only 300,00+ were struck. And with the copper price still high (War of 1812 didn't end until 1815), they were mostly melted. In fact, the melting problem had become so acute that in 1814 the Treasurer of the U.S. ordered the Mint Director to cease striking copper. Of course by that time it was too late, the damage had already been done. With the Mint fairly idle due to lack of silver and gold deposits, in Dec. 1814 the Director ordered the remaining copper on had struck. Breen sez these were used to pay worker's wages, but this is likely another tale. Mint warrants were accepted at banks, so the Director could easily have paid the workers with warrants.
3. Why are the ones from 1808 to 1814 often come so black, when in lower circulated grades?
A: You're seein the heavily circulated "junk" that excaped the melts. They're little different that most other early copper in low grade. The cents of 1795 - 1800 are all very simliar in low grade.
4. What would have led Walter Breen to say that?
A: Too many acid trips
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu