Options
This year in numismatics (1793)
Trinketts
Posts: 1,699 ✭
Continuing on from this thread
We move on to 1793.
The one cent piece was one of the first coins struck at the new Philadelphia Mint(along with the half cent). Also known as the 'Chain Cent' it features a flowing hair portrait bust of lady liberty with a linked chain around the words one cent, and the fraction 1/100. There were two versions of the series one with AMERI. and the full AMERICA on the reverse.
Even though it was one of the first issues by the mint it was largely unpopular with the general public at the time as many thought that the chain might represent slavery or bondage rather than strength and unity.
Total mintage of 36,103... although many are well worn or damaged, with very few mint state examples existing.
Please make your contributions with your knowldedge about numismatics in 1793. Thanks
We move on to 1793.
The one cent piece was one of the first coins struck at the new Philadelphia Mint(along with the half cent). Also known as the 'Chain Cent' it features a flowing hair portrait bust of lady liberty with a linked chain around the words one cent, and the fraction 1/100. There were two versions of the series one with AMERI. and the full AMERICA on the reverse.
Even though it was one of the first issues by the mint it was largely unpopular with the general public at the time as many thought that the chain might represent slavery or bondage rather than strength and unity.
Total mintage of 36,103... although many are well worn or damaged, with very few mint state examples existing.
Please make your contributions with your knowldedge about numismatics in 1793. Thanks
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing about. -Benjamin Franklin-
0
Comments
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Please make your contributions with your knowldedge about numismatics in 1793. Thanks
What I know about the coinage of 1793 is...I don't have any and I want some of it!
These "large" copper cents (about 2 times the size of a modern penny) were thick and rather heavy and their rims or edges depicted images of vines and bars.
The first regular issue cents were dated 1793. The obverse of these coins depict a portrait of the goddess Liberty with flowing hair. The reverse has an image of an interlocking circular chain consisting of 15 links. These links were intended to represent the number of states in the Union in 1793. The interlocking nature of the chain was intended to represent unity and strength. The words ONE CENT and the fraction 1/100 appear in the center of the chain design. As a result of this design, these first cents came to be referred to as "Chain Cents".
The design of the Chain Cent proved to be highly unpopular with the general public at the time as many thought that the chain might represent slavery or bondage rather than strength and unity. Accordingly, production of the coins was discontinued after a very short period of time and the design was replaced later in 1793 by the "Wreath Cent".
Only 36,103 Chain Cents were minted - all of them between March 1 and March 12, 1793. It is estimated that no more than about 2,000 of these coins survive today and many are in heavily worn condition or damaged. There are a few coins available in mint condition but these are extremely rare.
There are two major varieties of Chain Cents. The first, more common variety, displays the word "AMERICA" on the reverse legend. The second, less common variety, displays the abbreviation, "AMERI.".
<< <i>There were no half dimes struck in 1793. >>
LOL You're A #1 in my book Mr.HD
November 23, 1793
Robert Scot received his appointment as the first Engraver of the Mint, November 23, 1793.
<< <i>all of them between March 1 and March 12, 1793. >>
Which happen to by my brother and my birthdays
<< <i>
<< <i>all of them between March 1 and March 12, 1793. >>
Which happen to by my brother and my birthdays
Wow, they saw you coming a mile away!
I like one of the contemporary critiques of the chain cent. One wag wrote that it looked like Liberty was afraid and saying, "Alexander the coppersmith has done me much harm".
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>The design of the Chain Cent proved to be highly unpopular with the general public at the time as many thought that the chain might represent slavery or bondage rather than strength and unity. Accordingly, production of the coins was discontinued after a very short period of time and the design was replaced later in 1793 by the "Wreath Cent". >>
This was probably the first time the "great public outcry" myth shows up in US Numismatics. Where did ths great outcry come from and when? The chain cents were only struck during an eleven day period. It would have taken at least some time for the coins to have gotten out into general circulation. Now the only ways the government would have gotte feedback about a great public dis-satisfaction with the design would have been by mail or through the newspapers. I have never heard of any quotes from letters from that period. The newspapers if the era were mostly weekly or monthly publications and the only published criticism was the one that shirohniichan printed. I'did a quick check but I couldn't find out when that jibe was published. I would not be surprised to find that it was printed AFTER the chain cents were already discontinued. If that is true then it would have had little or no effect on the decision to change the design.
<< <i>I like one of the contemporary critiques of the chain cent. One wag wrote that it looked like Liberty was afraid and saying, "Alexander the coppersmith has done me much harm". >>
This one criticism of the design may have also been more a political jab than a comment on the coin. The reference to Alexander was meant as a jab at Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury Unfortunately at that time, the Mint was not controled by the Treasury. It was controled by the State Dept which was headed by Thomas Jefferson.
The changeover from the Chain Cents to the Wreath Cents was not due to a public outcry "myth". It was due to fact. The writing mentioned, in part, about Alexander and the frightened image of Liberty can be found in the March 18, 1793 edition of Dunlap's Daily Advertiser which was printed in Philadelphia. The letter that was printed came from Newark, NJ.
Mint Director David Rittenhouse read this and immediately ordered a re-design, as the last thing he wanted was public criticism of the new Mint.
Bob Birch and Joseph Wright were the only qualified engravers available to Rittenhouse. Both of these men were already working at the Mint. Each one was appointed to work on a die, Wright did the obverse while Birch worked on the reverse. It was a true emergency and they worked feverishly to get these done in record time.
The last delivery of Chain Cents was made on March 12, while the first delivery of Wreath Cents was on April 9, (they had been first struck on April 4).
This information, along with numerous other accurate facts regarding the early American issues can be found in my forthcoming book titled "Henry Voigt and Others Involved with America's Early Coinage". The book will be released at the 2007 ANA show. Check www.earlyuscoins.org
Karl Moulton
Thanks a bunch for the correct information.
In another thread Cardinal mentioned a special edition of your new book with added plates. Do you have an information about price and availability of the special edition?
Can't wait for you book.
Both of mine are nice and beat up
AJ
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
The deluxe editions will be available later this fall. The cost will be around $400, depending on final quotes from the bindery. The regular edition will be available at the ANA show for $79., then the retail price goes to $90.
Thank you for asking about the deluxe version.
The deluxe editions will be full white leather bound, and they will be done in the USA, not China (even though it would be less expensive).
The reply was about the changeover from the Chain to the Wreath's in March of 1793. that's why I didn't get into the varieties.
The deluxe editions will be available later this fall. The cost will be around $400, depending on final quotes from the bindery. The regular edition will be available at the ANA show for $79., then the retail price goes to $90.
Firstmint, would you post ordering information for those who may not go to ANA? Thanks very much.
I knew it would happen.
Karl Moulton
PO Box 1073
Congress, AZ 85332
The deluxe copies will all be in white leather, with red lettering and a blue border.
Welcome to the forum!
<< <i>The deluxe copies will all be in white leather, with red lettering and a blue border. >>
You have probably already submitted the order, however, I presume that you would sell more of the deluxe editions to those of us that collect fine bindings if you had some made in black, brown, or red. Just a thought ...
<< <i>The changeover from the Chain Cents to the Wreath Cents was not due to a public outcry "myth". It was due to fact. The writing mentioned, in part, about Alexander and the frightened image of Liberty can be found in the March 18, 1793 edition of Dunlap's Daily Advertiser which was printed in Philadelphia. The letter that was printed came from Newark, NJ.
Mint Director David Rittenhouse read this and immediately ordered a re-design, as the last thing he wanted was public criticism of the new Mint. >>
One letter in one newspaper is hardly a "public outcry" Are there other examples of widespread public dissatisfaction? Is there a written letter from Rittenhouse dated after March 18th ordering the change in design or referencing the newspaper letter?
Coinage of the chain cent ended because of a lack of planchets and the breakage of the dies. New dies would have had to have been produced anyway and the striking problems with the chain cent had probably already been noticed. Changes in design were probably contemplated before the newspaper letter had even been published. (Note that although the letter had complained about the liberty head as well "appearing to be in a fright" the head did not change that much.) Considering the time that would have been required to create the new design, create the punches needed, create and anneal the die blanks, engrave and then harden the dies it would seem to me that a longer period than March 19 - April 4 would probably have been needed. (Annealing takes time and can not be rushed. And the obv dies may have needed two annealings, one for the head punch and then another to soften the die for the hand engraving of the hair.)
While a letter from Rittenhouse dated after March 18th would prove that the designs were not changed until after that point, I think that the new designs were probably underway shortly after the coining of the chain cent ended if not even before that. (The shortcomings of the chain cent design becoming known while they were in production. This being evidence by the fact that only two chain reverses were prepared. They had to know that more dies than that would be needed even before March 1st, yet no more were made. Possibly because they know that the design was going to be changed?)
I doubt that there was a public outcry about the Chain cents. Those were Breen or Taxay's words - not mine. However, it must be remembered the David Rittenhouse was extremely sensitive to all situations regarding the new U.S. Mint. Any and all criticism was considered, whether it was from the public or from Congress. He did everything within his power to help ensure that it became a positive entity. This included NOT installing a steam powered engine for coinage production. He also went bankrupt and ended up in debtor's prison because he gave so much of his own personal money to the operations of the Mint. This included covering Henry Voigt's $5,000 surety bond in March of 1794, just so coinage of silver and gold could get underway. He also provided the silver ingot bullion for the 1794 dollars, etc.
There were planchets for the Large Cents available. The workers in the Mint worked day and night to keep the copper wrought, in all of it's various forms. In the Voigt book, I have nearly two dozen pages from Henry Voigt's 1793 daily work ledger, which outlines what work was done and by whom. Up to this point in time, I doubt if anyone has known that the Mint workers in the coining department had worked nights.
As for the time needed to make new dies, both Birch and Wright had been hard pressed, timewise, to do this since 1792. The Large size Birch cents had been discontined by an Act of Congress when the weight was lowered from 264 grains to 218 grains on January 14, 1793. Less than two months passed before the first Chain cents were delivered to Mint treasurer Tristram Dalton. That was with one engraver doing both dies.
There was an employee named Jacob Bay, whose job it was to make nothing but punches. They were already on hand. The cleaning, boiling, and annealing of the copper and milling of the blank planchets was done at the same time by several others in the coining department. Their names are listed in Voigt's work and payroll ledger. The Mint's smithy, Jacob Craft was the one responsible for annealing the dies, which didn't take that much time - if it was done properly. Fortunately, Henry Voigt had perfected the process of making steel from bar iron at that point, and the dies didn't crack nearly so often from the annealing process.
As modern numismatist's, we have had to deal with a great deal of speculation and conjecture for much of our acquired knowledge. The Henry Voigt book deals with the available known facts, rather than perpetuating assumptions. Hopefully, it will receive a widespread audience and help change much of the mis-information from the past.
BTW - there are three Chain cent reverse varieties, not two.
<< <i>BTW - there are three Chain cent reverse varieties, not two. >>
?? has there been a new variety discovered since 1991? 1793 NC-7? I only find references to two reverse dies paired with four obverses to strike five varieties.
<< <i>There was an employee named Jacob Bay, whose job it was to make nothing but punches. They were already on hand >>
The different leaf punches needed to create the wreath would not have been on hand until after the decision to change the design had been made (The punches used for the birch cent are different and larger than those used on the wreath cent), and they would have probably taken at least a day or two to make them from scratch. It looks like they would have needed at least four different leaf punches, but they could probably create them fairly easily and at roughly the same time. There are two ways to make a punch. One is to hand engrave the end of an annealed steel into the form you need and then harden it. This works but you have one punch and if it breaks you have to start from scratch again. The other option is to either engrave a block with the negative of the form you need (or punch the block with the positive you made by the other method) then harden the block. You now have a die you can use to create multiple identical punches. I would assume they had annealed steels and blocks on hand for this purpose. The wreath body and ribbon could be hand engraved into each die, and they appear to be. The punches needed for the dentical beads and the wreath berries are simple and could probably be obtained without having to make them in house.
<< <i>The Mint's smithy, Jacob Craft was the one responsible for annealing the dies, which didn't take that much time - if it was done properly. >>
Annealing the dies would take two or three days. The key to proper annealing is to cool the steel very slowly, usually over a two to three day period. The slower you cool it the softer and more workable the metal is when it is finally cool.
<< <i>Fortunately, Henry Voigt had perfected the process of making steel from bar iron at that point, and the dies didn't crack nearly so often from the annealing process. >>
Dies would almost never crack from annealing (I guess if you unevenly heated a fully hardened die while trying to reanneal it you might introduce enough internal stress to crack it. But who anneals fully hardened dies?). They crack from hardening. The sudden cooling in the quenching process can create terrific internal stresses in the die which can cause cracks or even make the die explode if it contains too large of an internal flaw. It was in the hardening that the mint lost dies not annealing. Annealing and hardening of dies back then was truely an art. The final hardness or softness of the steel is a function of the temperature the steel is heated to, how long it is held at that temperature and then the speed at which it is cooled and what it is cooled in. Today we can measure the temperature of the metal but back then you had to stare into the furnace and judge the temperature by the color of the steel and try to hold it at that temperature for the proper time (again much easier today). Then remove the die and quench it in the proper solution which ideally is also at the desired temperature. (And of course eventually they developed techniques for producing dies of variable hardness with the die face and core area just below it being harder than the the rest of the body of the die. Thus reducing the problems of the die face sinking.)
<< <i>Less than two months passed before the first Chain cents were delivered to Mint treasurer Tristram Dalton. That was with one engraver doing both dies. >>
So they created 6 dies in two months and if they didn't start the new design until after the March 18th letter they then created, starting nearly from scratch, 8 dies in four weeks (This includes the first week of production.) Possible I guess, but I still think they probably started work on the new design before the letter came out. Otherwise by that time they would probably have had at least one, possibly more pairs of chain dies prepared by then (they DID have the punches for them on hand and probably die blanks as well.) and rather than scrap perfectly good dies, they would probably have used them.
<< <i>
Please make your contributions with your knowldedge about numismatics in 1793. Thanks
It was 200 years before the year I was born?
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
As for the time needed to make new dies, both Birch and Wright had been hard pressed, timewise, to do this since 1792.
The statement implies that Birch was doing dies in 1793. Is this correct?
Denga
The 3 reverse varieties refer to the Ameri, the America, and the America w/ period. If they re-annealed the America die and added the period, then there were only two as you mention.
You also mention the breakage of the dies as a reason the Chain cents were discontinued. While I'm not completely versed on all the die states of the Chain cents, would you be able to inform me and others as to where the breaks appeared?
As for the punches issue, I was not aware there was ever a "leaf" punch. What is your source for this claim? Figures and letters, yes- but if there was such a punch (or punches as you suggest) utilized on the Wreath cents, what was left to engrave - from what I can see, only the ribbon.
Regrettably, and this is quite important, there are no records extant that outline the actual die sinking, engraving, annealing, and hardening stages utilized at the first U S Mint. We do have much better technology today; but the smithwork performed on the variable quality of steel on hand produced unreliable results then. That's why Joseph Wright did not guarantee the outcome to Thomas Jefferson of his engraving of the General Lee medal in the summer of 1792. One die cracked.
Until evidence becomes available (if ever), we will have to agree to disagree on the methods used in the die production process at the U.S. Mint in the 1790's.
Mint records validate that Bob Birch was at the Mint during 1793. He died later that year in the yellow fever epidemic.
Both Joseph Wright and Bob Birch died from the yellow fever (although Birch was ill before then). This led to the appointment of Robert Scot as the engraver when he Mint opened up again in November.
<< <i>There were planchets for the Large Cents available. The workers in the Mint worked day and night to keep the copper wrought, in all of it's various forms. In the Voigt book, I have nearly two dozen pages from Henry Voigt's 1793 daily work ledger, which outlines what work was done and by whom. Up to this point in time, I doubt if anyone has known that the Mint workers in the coining department had worked nights.
As for the time needed to make new dies, both Birch and Wright had been hard pressed, timewise, to do this since 1792. The Large size Birch cents had been discontined by an Act of Congress when the weight was lowered from 264 grains to 218 grains on January 14, 1793. Less than two months passed before the first Chain cents were delivered to Mint treasurer Tristram Dalton. That was with one engraver doing both dies.
There was an employee named Jacob Bay, whose job it was to make nothing but punches. They were already on hand. The cleaning, boiling, and annealing of the copper and milling of the blank planchets was done at the same time by several others in the coining department. Their names are listed in Voigt's work and payroll ledger. The Mint's smithy, Jacob Craft was the one responsible for annealing the dies, which didn't take that much time - if it was done properly. Fortunately, Henry Voigt had perfected the process of making steel from bar iron at that point, and the dies didn't crack nearly so often from the annealing process. >>
Karl,
I will have to disagree with many of your statements. I found Voigt's account book in the early 80s, made a full copy, and published some of the info in my articles in PW in the 80s and 90s. Copies were given to Borckhardt, Julian, and JK (I think?). By the way, this is Voigt's "second" account book. The first account book is now missing, apparently since some time after Snowden quoted from it in 1860. Perhaps it is in Snowden's personal papers whereever they are.
Bay performed other tasks than just making punches. Voigt did not make the steel, the Mint purchased it from local sources and this is well doucmented in the Ordinary Receipts and Expenditures ledger. Mint records (including the one I am about to quote) show that dies frequently cracked, both in annealing and use. This was a major reason for the hiring of Eckfeldt.
As to the early engravers, the definitive record on this subject is contained in Boudinot's Feb 9, 1795 report to Congress wherein it is stated: "It was also a considerable time before an engraver could be engaged, during which, the chief coiner was obliged to make the
dies for himself; and yet the dies are subject to frequent failures and breaking."
This statement is definitive. First, it is contemporary to the matter. Secondly, it is crystal clear: All dies prior to Wright and Scot were engraved by the Chief Coiner, Henry Voigt. The statement, of course, is only referring to the official Federal Mint issues, not the provisional issues struck at Harper's. I am currently working on a complete treatment of the subject and will publish in due course.
Thank you for your reply. As these boards are used as an exchange of information, we can all learn something.
We have both been in the National Archives and both made copies, so I'll respond to your citations with others that are perhaps more relevant and pre-date the ones that you use.
My statement that Jacob bay only made punches comes from Henry Voigt's daily work ledger and payroll account book from 1793. If you are referring to the Isiaiah Thomas account from 1810, it is not correct. Neither was his reference regarding Frederick Geiger (actually Guyer).
Voigt making steel should have been Voigt perfecting the process for making steel from bar iron- my error. Several announcements appeared in newspapers in June of 1793 outlining his willingness to communicate this process with others free of charge. Yes, the Mint getting good quality steel for dies was a problem all along. Speaking of dies, you are quite correct in that they did crack in all stages of development and use.
As for continuous employment, Adam Eckfeldt was originally contracted in January of 1795 to make adjustments to and rebuild the large screw press acquired in 1794 from Rutter & Co. so that the remaining blank dollar planchets could be struck. He was initially contracted for smithwork from October to December in 1792. He didn't work at the mint in 1793 or 1794. Because of his mechanical skills, and that he was an experienced smith, was the reason he was then offered a position to work at the Mint in 1795.
As to the 1795 Boudinot statement found in ASP, Finance, Vol. 1, that is completely false, when compared to Henry Voigt's April 13, 1792 application for employment. Henry Voigt himself specifically mentions that he didn't engrave dies. Making dies is one thing, engraving them is another. This has been misunderstood forever it seems. Boudinot did not really know about the internal workings of the Mint at that point in time when he made his report. The wording used was not exact by any means. Voigt's application letter to George Washington confirms this (JK just found about this also).
Proper information about early American numismatics is continually evolving. All of what I have outlined will be found in the Henry Voigt book.
My statement that Jacob bay only made punches comes from Henry Voigt's daily work ledger
and payroll account book from 1793. If you are referring to the Isiaiah Thomas account from
1810, it is not correct. Neither was his reference regarding Frederick Geiger (actually Guyer).
Not quite right. Bay did cut punches but worked at other jobs. On April 17, 1793, for example,
he, Flude, and Gerard were at work coining cents on the screw press. This was published,
with a photograph from the chief coiner’s work ledger, in the May 1963 Numismatic Scrapbook
Magazine.
Denga.
<< <i>The 3 reverse varieties refer to the Ameri, the America, and the America w/ period. If they re-annealed the America die and added the period, then there were only two as you mention. >>
There is no chain cent with a period after AMERICA. The AMERI has a period and there is a Wreath cent with a period after AMERICA, S-10.
The AMERI die die cracked through the tops of TAT (S-1 State IV), and finally develped a heavy cud in that location and was retired (S-1 State V)
Obv 1 was retired after S-2. No cracks but several cases of severe die clashings in the S-1 marriage had been polished away leaving details weak. Die sinking through bottom of date. (first use of Rev B )
Obv 2 used only on NC-1. Cracked from rim through 1 in date into field. (Second use of Rev
Obv 3 S-3, other than die clashes I do not know why obv retired. Third use of Rev B. In early states die is beginning to fail below UNITED. In later states die failure/sinking/ roughness extends from UNITED around to below OF.
Obv 4 S-4 Die is cracked from 8:00 to hair, die sinking slightly in this area. Second state first crack is heavier, a second crack from 7:30 through field below hair towards date, third crack through the bottom of RTY to period, final state small cud develops at 7:30 third crack now extends through BER,die beginnig to fail in field before face. Final use of Rev B dies heavily reground to remove roughness and flaws below UNITED STATES OF.
You are correct in that Bay did occasionally assist with the coining process. He had done this earlier on April 6, 1793 also. However, that was not his primary job. The other claim made previously about Bay (begining in 1810) is that he also engraved dies. There is no record of him ever doing this at the Mint.
The other employees in the coining department also did other assigned (temporary) duties to accomplish whatever was needed in coinage production. They had to be flexible, as there was a great deal of work that was needing to be performed.
If we focus on one small item or thing, and make that the focus of disagreement, then we completely lose sight of the the larger picture. Since this is not the place or venue for long dissertations, I will simply mention that I already know about that citation (it is found in Voigt's daily ledger). That page, along with many others, is pictured in the Voigt book for others to learn as well.
Thank you for the detailed information about the die cracks. Apparently, you feel these were the reason the designed changed, and I won't try to change your thinking on the matter.
Apparently, I misread the Sheldon book in the locations of periods for the S-4. I stand properly informed.
<< <i>As to the 1795 Boudinot statement found in ASP, Finance, Vol. 1, that is completely false, when compared to Henry Voigt's April 13, 1792 application for employment. Henry Voigt himself specifically mentions that he didn't engrave dies. Making dies is one thing, engraving them is another. This has been misunderstood forever it seems. Boudinot did not really know about the internal workings of the Mint at that point in time when he made his report. The wording used was not exact by any means. Voigt's application letter to George Washington confirms this (JK just found about this also). >>
We shall have to disagree. Saying that you haven't done something previously does not mean that you will not do it in the future. Prior to programming, I did not. Prior to writing a book, you had not. Voigt was merely pointing out that he had not engraved while at Saxe-Gotha. means nothing other than he had not.
<< <i>My statement that Jacob bay only made punches comes from Henry Voigt's daily work ledger and payroll account book from 1793. If you are referring to the Isiaiah Thomas account from 1810, it is not correct. Neither was his reference regarding Frederick Geiger (actually Guyer).
Voigt making steel should have been Voigt perfecting the process for making steel from bar iron- my error. Several announcements appeared in newspapers in June of 1793 outlining his willingness to communicate this process with others free of charge. Yes, the Mint getting good quality steel for dies was a problem all along. Speaking of dies, you are quite correct in that they did crack in all stages of development and use.
As for continuous employment, Adam Eckfeldt was originally contracted in January of 1795 to make adjustments to and rebuild the large screw press acquired in 1794 from Rutter & Co. so that the remaining blank dollar planchets could be struck. He was initially contracted for smithwork from October to December in 1792. He didn't work at the mint in 1793 or 1794. Because of his mechanical skills, and that he was an experienced smith, was the reason he was then offered a position to work at the Mint in 1795.
As to the 1795 Boudinot statement found in ASP, Finance, Vol. 1, that is completely false, when compared to Henry Voigt's April 13, 1792 application for employment. Henry Voigt himself specifically mentions that he didn't engrave dies. Making dies is one thing, engraving them is another. This has been misunderstood forever it seems. Boudinot did not really know about the internal workings of the Mint at that point in time when he made his report. The wording used was not exact by any means. Voigt's application letter to George Washington confirms this (JK just found about this also).
Proper information about early American numismatics is continually evolving. All of what I have outlined will be found in the Henry Voigt book. >>
Karl, I'm now at home where I have access to my files and can answer more fully. I disagree with most of what you have to say.
1. As to Bay, as I stated I have a copy of Voigt's account book that I made in the 1980s. Julian has already quoted Bay working on other than punches. I can go thru the acct book this weekend to see if there are other entries.
2. Re Voigt's "perfecting" the process for making steel, I seriously doubt this. Prior to leaving industry for systems programming I was a process and manufacturing engineering in the metals industry. My particular expertise was in steel and soldering processes. You may be able to find some of my past articles in old manufacturing trade journals. Anyway, as a practicing engineer I became quite familiar with the historical processes.
Metallurgical history does not record Voigt as making any contribution. Further the overall historical record casts serious doubt on this. Prior to the development of the Bessemer process in 1850, history records that steel had been made by the cementation process (blister steel) for centuries. The only pre-Bessemer "improvement noted in the historical record is Huntsman's 1740 process of melting blister to homogenize it. No mention of Voigt's improvement.
Given Voigt's connection with Germany, it may well be that Voigt's "improvement" referred to is the process for "German steel" (also called natural steel). This process resulted in a steel that greatly varied in carbon composition and thus was not suitable as tool steel. Another possibility is that Voigt developed a minor modification to the cementation process. Whatever the case, the historical record shows that it was not significant.
3. As to Eckfeldt, the records you mention are quoted in Stewart and are thus well known. You are incorrect that Eckfeldt's April 3 payment is for work on the Rutter press. The dollar press was made by Samuel Howell, Jr. & Co. and delivered sometime prior to the Feb 2, 1795 warrant for payment (probably mid-January). This was the largest press the Mint ever ordered, weighing some 3200 lbs and is the so-called dollar press. Eckfedlt forged the sliders and dies stakes for this and other presses (the slider is the block serving as the upper die holder and also serves to isolate the upper die from the torque of the screw; a die stake is a die cup).
Eckfeldt was subsequently appointed Oct. 10, 1795 as a “Die Sinker and Turner”. This title is most interesting since it does not say "blacksmith". In conjunction with succeeding records that show the purchase of general forgings from other persons, I conclude that Eckfeldt was hired specifically for his expertise in creating high quality forgings suited to the high stress application of coining. Other Mint records likewise support this conclusion.
4. As to the Boudinot statement, I soundly reject your contention that it is false and rather than it having been "misunderstood forever", it has only very recently been misunderstood. Perhaps the formal English and grammar is confusing you. A semicolon in formal English indicates the end of one thought and the beginning of another related thought, the object of both parts being the same. Thus the statement in current English would be something like the following:
Until qualified engravers were hired, the Chief Coiner was forced to forge and engrave the dies himself. With the hire of the late Mr. Wright and the current engraver Mr. Scot, the engraving issue has been addressed, however the dies are still breaking.
While it may seem odd to some that two seemingly disconnected issues are addressed in one statement, such is not the case. In 1795 no one knew much about the how and why of steel. Yes, they knew how to make, forge, anneal and harden it, but only by rough practice. They did not know the physics or chemistry behind it - modern physical and chemical metallurgy would really have to wait for Hadfield's landmark works in the latter 1880s.
5. Regarding the dies cracking in all stages of production and use, I note your agreement. In furtherance of this, I had an interesting technical discussion some time ago with the Plant Metallurgist at the Philly Mint . We were discussing the reasons for cracking in early dies and concluded that induced stresses were likely a major cause. The historical record strongly supports this. I would be interested if you concur and why. I would be particularly interested in your thoughts as to phase shift depth as a primary cause.
I had not intended this to become nothing but a disagreement thread, but one which contained information since the title is about the year in numismatics 1793. Therefore, I wanted to preview new and original research that will be presented in the Voigt book. With that in mind, I shall offer citataions and examples to validate what I have already mentioned and to counter some of your disagreements.
1. Jacob Bay's job at the U S Mint was cutting punches. He did this until he was replaced by Frederick Guyer on August 13. I have read Julian's accounting of Bay engraving dies. Unfortunately, he uses the 1810 Thomas citation as a source. However, Thomas was not at the mint in 1793, and there are no records from that time which valiadte his citation. It then becomes hearsay. If original documents don't validate the claims made, then why emphatically believe otherwise? It seems that you and Julian tend to do this.
2.Continuing on with the above, in reality, the 1795 Boudinot report (which you even transcribe to fit today's language), does not mention anything specific to Voigt ever doing any engraving. Yet you say this is "definitive and crystlal clear". Why is it that you don't accept or believe Henry Voigt's own words from April 13, 1792 when he specifically mentions that he didn't engrave dies? Then again, David Rittenhouse mentions Voigt and engraving in a June 1792 letter to Washington which mentioned he presumed Voigt was perfectly equal to the duties of a coiner, but not of an engraver. Rittenhouse also mentions that Voigt be given a salary of $1500. and that the cost of engraving dies be deducted from his salary. What does this tell you about Voigt's engraving ability or skills? To me it is obvious he wasn't responsible for any coin engraving at the US Mint.
3. The mention of Henry Voigt perfecting the process for making steel is found in several 1793 newspapers. The newspaper reports are quoted in the Voigt book, so I won't print them here. Just because you can't find anything in later references doesn't mean this didn't happen.
4. I'm not a metalurgist by trade. I leave that to those of you who are - Chris Pilliod, yourself, etc. However, When SEM-EDX anaylisys comes into play, the steel used at the Philadelphia Mint in 1809 (as that was the die tested) was remarkable in it's quality to die steel seen over 100 years later.
5. In an October 1794 letter to secretary of state, Edmund Randolph, David Rittenhouse mentions that blank dollar planchets were waiting to be coined "...waiting for a more powerful press to be finished..." this was the Rutter press that the Mint had acquired in March of 1794. I don't believe that the 3 presses from Howell were inside the Mint and waiting to be "finished" at that point in time. Rittenhouse only mentions one press, and that's what Adam Eckfeldt was contracted to work on beginning in January 1795.
6. Speaking of Adam Eckfeldt, it seems you take issue with my using the term smith or "blacksmith". It needs to be pointed out that this is the exact term that David Rittenhouse used in his April 3, 1795 warrant to pay Eckfeldt for the repairs to the Rutter press. The "Die Sinker and Turner" title is from a payroll dated the 10th of October. He wasn't appointed that day as you mention, by then he was already a Mint employee.
There's always some area of debate on different interpretations of historical findings over 200 years old. It happens in all fields of endeavor. That's all part of the learning process. Not wishing to hog this thread, I will cut off for now, unless you wish to continue. Perhaps you will get a copy of the Voigt book and see what there is that may be new and useful to your research.
It certainly has been an interesting discussion, but you are correct, time has come to end it in this venue. I look forward to reading and responding to the material presented in your book. I thank you in advance for graciously providing me with so much to discuss.
Thankyou as well for the interesting exchange of opinions. I hope that you will find the information in the Voigt book to be comprehensive and useful.