Options
Maria Theresa thalers in the 1872 US Mint Report
shirohniichan
Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
I've been researching the US double dime for some time, and I ran across an interesting reference to the Maria Theresa thaler:
It is a curious fact that the thaler or dollar of the Empress Maria Theresa, originally bearing date 1780, has always been a favorite at the eastern ports of the Mediterranean, and for that reason has continued to be coined for that trade ever since. We have a fine specimen coined in 1871, but dated 1780.
It is worth while to notice, for its bearing on an interesting controversy in mint legislation, in which strong minds have taken opposing sides, that in 1808 there was a coinage of some millions of this 'Levant thaler,' mainly to supply the needs of the English army going to the Abyssinian war, not, indeed, to be spent in that far-off country, but at places along the road. Now, if it were, the law in Austria to coin without charge, it would be an exhibition of liberality hard to account for, to help the British government in that way, and not quite fair toward the opposite party in Africa. Yet we would be doing the same thing by making silver dollars to pass in China or India, and dimes for the West Indies and South America, and gold coin for any foreign use, without deducting something for the manufacture. England is doing this in sending her gold coin abroad simply as so much bullion, paying the cost of the coinage out of her treasury, whereby she has indeed the honor of seeing her sovereign's image and superscription in all lands, and of making a universal commercial currency. Still it is desirable and just to promote the coinage of gold and silver by making the charge as light as possible.
This fascinated me for because it documents a number of areas of interest to me:
1) It confirms the minting and export of minor coins to South America and the West Indies. I've read a number of books that claimed this was happening, but they did not note contemporary documents stating this happened.
2) We see here the continued interest in coining trade dollars for China.
3) I didn't know the British government bought millions of Maria Theresa thalers for use in supplying troops heading to northeast Africa.
4) Here we see the argument to lower the coinage charge to promote the coining of gold and silver in the US. Because of 1/2 percent coinage charges, bullion producers found it more profitable to sell their gold and silver to the British than to have them coined in the US. The Mint Act of 1873 reduced this to 1/5 percent to remedy this problem and keep more money in this country.
It is a curious fact that the thaler or dollar of the Empress Maria Theresa, originally bearing date 1780, has always been a favorite at the eastern ports of the Mediterranean, and for that reason has continued to be coined for that trade ever since. We have a fine specimen coined in 1871, but dated 1780.
It is worth while to notice, for its bearing on an interesting controversy in mint legislation, in which strong minds have taken opposing sides, that in 1808 there was a coinage of some millions of this 'Levant thaler,' mainly to supply the needs of the English army going to the Abyssinian war, not, indeed, to be spent in that far-off country, but at places along the road. Now, if it were, the law in Austria to coin without charge, it would be an exhibition of liberality hard to account for, to help the British government in that way, and not quite fair toward the opposite party in Africa. Yet we would be doing the same thing by making silver dollars to pass in China or India, and dimes for the West Indies and South America, and gold coin for any foreign use, without deducting something for the manufacture. England is doing this in sending her gold coin abroad simply as so much bullion, paying the cost of the coinage out of her treasury, whereby she has indeed the honor of seeing her sovereign's image and superscription in all lands, and of making a universal commercial currency. Still it is desirable and just to promote the coinage of gold and silver by making the charge as light as possible.
This fascinated me for because it documents a number of areas of interest to me:
1) It confirms the minting and export of minor coins to South America and the West Indies. I've read a number of books that claimed this was happening, but they did not note contemporary documents stating this happened.
2) We see here the continued interest in coining trade dollars for China.
3) I didn't know the British government bought millions of Maria Theresa thalers for use in supplying troops heading to northeast Africa.
4) Here we see the argument to lower the coinage charge to promote the coining of gold and silver in the US. Because of 1/2 percent coinage charges, bullion producers found it more profitable to sell their gold and silver to the British than to have them coined in the US. The Mint Act of 1873 reduced this to 1/5 percent to remedy this problem and keep more money in this country.
Obscurum per obscurius
0
Comments
Does this passage really confirm the fact of America producing coinage for the Indies and South America at the time? It seems it may be just commenting on the prospect of such a thing - "Yet we would be..." if we adopted the policy some have proposed?
(I ask this from a point of utter ignorance on the subject, just curious though.)
My wantlist & references
My wantlist & references
<< <i>That really is interesting. What's the source this came from? is it online by chance?
Does this passage really confirm the fact of America producing coinage for the Indies and South America at the time? It seems it may be just commenting on the prospect of such a thing - "Yet we would be..." if we adopted the policy some have proposed?
(I ask this from a point of utter ignorance on the subject, just curious though.) >>
The US did not intentionally strike dimes for foreign distribution at the time. Before the 1873 Mint Act, depositors of silver bullion could have them minted into US coins. Most were struck as half dollars, but brokers found a market for dimes and quarters, also. They deposited bullion to be struck as US coins, and then sold them overseas (their bullion value was higher than their nominal dollar value at the time, so silver coins didn't circulate in the eastern states).
Obscurum per obscurius
From 1853 on there was no free coinage of the new lightweight dimes, quarters and halves. Any pre 1873 coin shortage in the East was probably a Civil War and Gresham's law effect where the paper fractional currency drove the silver out of circulation.
<< <i>...in 1808 there was a coinage of some millions of this 'Levant thaler,' mainly to supply the needs of the English army going to the Abyssinian war, not, indeed, to be spent in that far-off country, but at places along the road...
...I didn't know the British government bought millions of Maria Theresa thalers for use in supplying troops heading to northeast Africa... >>
Two comments:
I think you'll find the "Abyssinian War" happened in 1868, not 1808. The Brits would have had their hands full with Napoleon in 1808. 1868 would have put the event much closer in time to 1871.
Calling them "English troops" is a bit of a misnomer, because they were Imperial troops - and the troops the Empire used were from India. Thus, they wouldn't expect to be paid in sterling, and being paid in thalers would have enabled them to spend the money there in east Africa.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
<< <i><<Before the 1873 Mint Act, depositors of silver bullion could have them minted into US coins. Most were struck as half dollars, but brokers found a market for dimes and quarters, also. They deposited bullion to be struck as US coins, and then sold them overseas (their bullion value was higher than their nominal dollar value at the time, so silver coins didn't circulate in the eastern states).>>
From 1853 on there was no free coinage of the new lightweight dimes, quarters and halves. Any pre 1873 coin shortage in the East was probably a Civil War and Gresham's law effect where the paper fractional currency drove the silver out of circulation. >>
You are correct. Subsidiary silver could be purchased at par in gold in sums of $100 or more. After the demonetization of silver in Germany in 1871 the price of silver began to fall, but in 1872 it was still close to the official 15 1/2 to 1 ratio to gold. Brokers made a profitable business of buying silver and exporting it. Much of it went north until Canada started minting coins in 1870 to drive American currency out of circulation. I imagine American gold coinage continued to circulate in Canada, though.
Once the price of silver fell below the value of greenbacks in 1876 silver US coins started flooding back into this country. I'd read that the US Mints were so busy striking silver dollars from 1878 on that they didn't have much time for subsidiary silver coins. The truth is that there wasn't much demand for them because of the old silver coins coming back to the States.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>
<< <i>...in 1808 there was a coinage of some millions of this 'Levant thaler,' mainly to supply the needs of the English army going to the Abyssinian war, not, indeed, to be spent in that far-off country, but at places along the road...
...I didn't know the British government bought millions of Maria Theresa thalers for use in supplying troops heading to northeast Africa... >>
Two comments:
I think you'll find the "Abyssinian War" happened in 1868, not 1808. The Brits would have had their hands full with Napoleon in 1808. 1868 would have put the event much closer in time to 1871.
Calling them "English troops" is a bit of a misnomer, because they were Imperial troops - and the troops the Empire used were from India. Thus, they wouldn't expect to be paid in sterling, and being paid in thalers would have enabled them to spend the money there in east Africa. >>
If you look at page 422 of the 1872 Mint Report as it appears in plain text, it reads "1808". If you read a scan of the actual page, you'll see it is really "1868" as you said. The problem I'm finding with plain text interpretations of actual printed pages is that the numbers are oftentimes wrong or gibberish.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>If you look at page 422 of the 1872 Mint Report as it appears in plain text, it reads "1808". If you read a scan of the actual page, you'll see it is really "1868" as you said. The problem I'm finding with plain text interpretations of actual printed pages is that the numbers are oftentimes wrong or gibberish. >>
One runs into the same problem with text interpretations of scripted census reports, which have been photographed, then scanned, then run through some sort of OCR software that can't handles scripted flourishes, the archaic 'Long S', etc. I suspect that in the original script, if that is what it is, the 6 of 1868 was written with a rather large lower circle and a rather small upper part, which some OCR software interpreted as a zero, and which didn’t get caught by a reviewer and/or spell checker.
Thank you for posting that interesting report.