Options
Great article in this month's Numismatist.....
savoyspecial
Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭
.....David McCarthy penned a nice article this month regarding the connection between Alexander Hamilton and Ephraim Brasher doubloons
Just a heads up that you may want to check it out!!
Just a heads up that you may want to check it out!!
www.brunkauctions.com
0
Comments
Brasher was not hired to conduct assays on behalf of the first United States Mint within a few months of the August 1791 letter by cashier William Seton. The U.S. Mint did not begin operations until December the following year. The first official assayer at the first US Mint was Joseph Richardson in 1795. David Ott, the US Mint's first Melter and Refiner did the first assays of foreign coins for the first US Mint in December 1792. There is no evidence that Brasher was ever in Philadelphia, and there is no evidence that any assays were done for Hamilton in New York. If there is, it needs to be presented.
The first official US Mint assays were done in 1796, and there are no references in Mint records to validate the claim made by McCarthy that "Brasher's assays - and the knowledge he gleaned from making his doubloons- impacted every gold coin struck in the United States between 1795 and 1933".
Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon, and that there have been numerous stories presented in past issues of The Numismatist to promote certain "facts". The story by ANA librarian SH Chapman in 1893 regarding the 1827/3/2 circulated Bust Quarter being paid out in a train station comes to mind. McCarthy claims that Hamilton's "letter confirms that Ephraim Brasher's coins did, in fact, circulate in the United States...". We see that one ended up at a bank, but that doesn't confirm that it came from circulation.
Besides, from what I read in Hamilton's letter, the cashier at the Bank of North America believed it wasn't up to proper weight, even though "the piece apparently was of full value" (according to McCarthy). Hamilton's letter and the nearly two month later reply only mentions the Dublon (sic). Since there are EB counterstamped Lima-style doubloons known (one is pictured in the article) it is possible that it may have been one of those pieces instead of the New York Doubloons. Unfortunately, Brasher's letter about the duobloon has not been located. Until that time does come, the claims made in the final paragraph can not be presumed to be accurate as "fact".
The fact is, that the New York 1787 Doubloons are the earliest dated gold pieces to be found from this country, but were never an official part of this country's coinage.
Then again, perhaps the cashier at the Bank of North America was making an observation based on the weight of the unique counterstamped piece on the eagle's breast, which was struck on a smaller sized planchet than others with the punch on the wing. A quick comparison of the one pictured in the article and the one on the front cover quickly shows the differences in the diameter, hence there may be a slight weight difference.
Breen is the only one to list any weights for these scarce pieces, but Breen merely copied information from others who copied from someone else. Unfortunately, there is no accurate weight listings of these EB New York Doubloons.
As you can tell, I don't believe everything I read in numismatic print.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>David McCarthy did write a fine article, but some parts are not correct, especially in the closing remarks after the Hamilton letter of June 1791.
...
Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon, and that there have been numerous stories presented in past issues of The Numismatist to promote certain "facts". >>
<< <i>
<< <i>David McCarthy did write a fine article, but some parts are not correct, especially in the closing remarks after the Hamilton letter of June 1791.
...
Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon, and that there have been numerous stories presented in past issues of The Numismatist to promote certain "facts". >>
Sure sounds like a conflict of interest. I wonder if the publisher/editor of the Numismatist is aware of this or if they would even care.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>David McCarthy did write a fine article, but some parts are not correct, especially in the closing remarks after the Hamilton letter of June 1791.
Brasher was not hired to conduct assays on behalf of the first United States Mint within a few months of the August 1791 letter by cashier William Seton. The U.S. Mint did not begin operations until December the following year. The first official assayer at the first US Mint was Joseph Richardson in 1795. David Ott, the US Mint's first Melter and Refiner did the first assays of foreign coins for the first US Mint in December 1792. There is no evidence that Brasher was ever in Philadelphia, and there is no evidence that any assays were done for Hamilton in New York. If there is, it needs to be presented.
The first official US Mint assays were done in 1796, and there are no references in Mint records to validate the claim made by McCarthy that "Brasher's assays - and the knowledge he gleaned from making his doubloons- impacted every gold coin struck in the United States between 1795 and 1933".
Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon, and that there have been numerous stories presented in past issues of The Numismatist to promote certain "facts". The story by ANA librarian SH Chapman in 1893 regarding the 1827/3/2 circulated Bust Quarter being paid out in a train station comes to mind. McCarthy claims that Hamilton's "letter confirms that Ephraim Brasher's coins did, in fact, circulate in the United States...". We see that one ended up at a bank, but that doesn't confirm that it came from circulation.
Besides, from what I read in Hamilton's letter, the cashier at the Bank of North America believed it wasn't up to proper weight, even though "the piece apparently was of full value" (according to McCarthy). Hamilton's letter and the nearly two month later reply only mentions the Dublon (sic). Since there are EB counterstamped Lima-style doubloons known (one is pictured in the article) it is possible that it may have been one of those pieces instead of the New York Doubloons. Unfortunately, Brasher's letter about the duobloon has not been located. Until that time does come, the claims made in the final paragraph can not be presumed to be accurate as "fact".
The fact is, that the New York 1787 Doubloons are the earliest dated gold pieces to be found from this country, but were never an official part of this country's coinage.
Then again, perhaps the cashier at the Bank of North America was making an observation based on the weight of the unique counterstamped piece on the eagle's breast, which was struck on a smaller sized planchet than others with the punch on the wing. A quick comparison of the one pictured in the article and the one on the front cover quickly shows the differences in the diameter, hence there may be a slight weight difference.
Breen is the only one to list any weights for these scarce pieces, but Breen merely copied information from others who copied from someone else. Unfortunately, there is no accurate weight listings of these EB New York Doubloons.
As you can tell, I don't believe everything I read in numismatic print. >>
Wow!
How is that relevant to determining the history of the coin?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon
How is that relevant to determining the history of the coin? >>
I could similarly point out that QDB himself was acting as a salesperson for Norweb, Eliasberg, Garrett, etc. And yet no one seems to doubt the veracity of those catalogs.
Brasher was not hired to conduct assays on behalf of the first United States Mint within a few months of the August 1791 letter by cashier William Seton. The U.S. Mint did not begin operations until December the following year. The first official assayer at the first US Mint was Joseph Richardson in 1795. David Ott, the US Mint's first Melter and Refiner did the first assays of foreign coins for the first US Mint in December 1792. There is no evidence that Brasher was ever in Philadelphia, and there is no evidence that any assays were done for Hamilton in New York. If there is, it needs to be presented.
The first official US Mint assays were done in 1796, ...".
Some problems with the above:
1) Albion Coxe (or Cox) was the first Assayer, not Joseph Richardson, and he certainly
did assays of foreign coins in 1794 and 1795.
2) The Mint did not begin “operations” in December 1792 but in fact much earlier.
3) It is very likely that Brasher did assays for Hamilton (in connection with the report
on a Mint and Coinage) in the summer and fall of 1790 because the United States
government did not leave New York City until mid August of that year and the Report
had been requested in early March 1790.
Denga
Too many times in past numismatic literature, a story is created to validate later marketing. I certainly hope this does not become the case with this particular item, which is headlined "Alexander Hamilton's correspondence solidifies the Brasher doubloon's reputation as the single, most important coin in American numismatics". Is this a fact, or an promotional conjecture?
The BD's already have unusual stories, including one being found in a Philadelphia sewer in 1897.
The fact is this - Alexander Hamilton was not connected in any way with the first US Mint until the resignation of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was the cabinet member responsible for Mint operations until 1794. Hamilton's duties as Secretary of the Treasury regarding coinage had to do with banking situations for the most part. There is no evidence that he had assays made on behalf of the US Mint. That was the responsibility of the Mint Director to comply with the Congressional mandates.
There were no references by Hamilton to any coinage being made in 1787 when the Federal Constitutional convention was taking place.
Who then, can validate that the coin(s) actually circulated (as claimed)? For instance, these could have been worn from being in a pocket of some Congressional leader who received one as a sample.
Obviously, much more needs to be presented in order to validate the history of these pieces. The fact that the author is employed by a retail seller of such items, presents a valid question as to the believability and acceptance, especially when the evidence does not support the claims being made.
Then again, this is quite a prevalent action taken by coin dealers in American numismatics.
edited to add -
The US Mint began coinage operations in December 1792 when the silver centered cents were struck. Construction of the buildings was going on before that time (since July that year). Logistical operations began in of April 1792.
Yes, Cox was appointed before Richardson, but he did not do the first US Mint assays. That was done by David Ott.
The 1790 Hamilton report was made for Congress, as was Jefferson's 1790 report on Weights and Measures. Neither of these has anything to do with the United States Mint.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>David McCarthy did write a fine article, but some parts are not correct, especially in the closing remarks after the Hamilton letter of June 1791.
...
Keep in mind that McCarthy works for an owner of a Brasher Doubloon, and that there have been numerous stories presented in past issues of The Numismatist to promote certain "facts". >>
Sure sounds like a conflict of interest. I wonder if the publisher/editor of the Numismatist is aware of this or if they would even care. >>
Conflict of interest seems to be all too frequent when it comes to numismatics.
Even the Redbook looks to the biggest sellers of coins to set pricing -- why should the ANA's newsletter be any different.
The world is full of conflicts of interest, and it is up to us to wade through it and make sense of it all....Mike
The US Mint began operations in December 1792 when the silver centered cents were struck. Construction of the buildings was going on before that time (since July that year).
Yes, Cox was appointed before Richardson, but he did not do the first US Mint assays. That was done by David Ott.
The 1790 Hamilton report was made for Congress, as was Jefferson's 1790 report on Weights and Measures. Neither of these has anything to do with the United States Mint.
I see. The 1792 half dismes were therefore not struck under Mint supervision if the Mint did not “begin operations”
until December 1792. I think we can move that date back several months, to at least June 1792. Firstmint seems to
think that it requires a finished building to be a mint. In point of fact some of the Mint operations were conducted
away from the Mint buildings for several months after coinage began in February 1793.
The first ongoing US Mint assays were done by Cox. Ott did an assay of foreign coins for Congress. There is a
significant difference. In a technical sense, however, the person who assayed the silver in preparation for the
half disme coinage in July 1792 did the first assay work in (or for) the United States Mint.
The Hamilton report was finished in 1791, not 1790.
Denga
<< <i>firstmint
The US Mint began operations in December 1792 when the silver centered cents were struck. Construction of the buildings was going on before that time (since July that year).
Yes, Cox was appointed before Richardson, but he did not do the first US Mint assays. That was done by David Ott.
The 1790 Hamilton report was made for Congress, as was Jefferson's 1790 report on Weights and Measures. Neither of these has anything to do with the United States Mint.
I see. The 1792 half dismes were therefore not struck under Mint supervision if the Mint did not “begin operations”
until December 1792. I think we can move that date back several months, to at least June 1792. Firstmint seems to
think that it requires a finished building to be a mint. In point of fact some of the Mint operations were conducted
away from the Mint buildings for several months after coinage began in February 1793.
The first ongoing US Mint assays were done by Cox. Ott did an assay of foreign coins for Congress. There is a
significant difference. In a technical sense, however, the person who assayed the silver in preparation for the
half disme coinage in July 1792 did the first assay work in (or for) the United States Mint.
The Hamilton report was finished in 1791, not 1790.
Denga >>
Am I the only one who finds the obvious rivalry between Denga and Firstmint to be fascinating?
<< <i>
<< <i>firstmint
The US Mint began operations in December 1792 when the silver centered cents were struck. Construction of the buildings was going on before that time (since July that year).
Yes, Cox was appointed before Richardson, but he did not do the first US Mint assays. That was done by David Ott.
The 1790 Hamilton report was made for Congress, as was Jefferson's 1790 report on Weights and Measures. Neither of these has anything to do with the United States Mint.
I see. The 1792 half dismes were therefore not struck under Mint supervision if the Mint did not “begin operations”
until December 1792. I think we can move that date back several months, to at least June 1792. Firstmint seems to
think that it requires a finished building to be a mint. In point of fact some of the Mint operations were conducted
away from the Mint buildings for several months after coinage began in February 1793.
The first ongoing US Mint assays were done by Cox. Ott did an assay of foreign coins for Congress. There is a
significant difference. In a technical sense, however, the person who assayed the silver in preparation for the
half disme coinage in July 1792 did the first assay work in (or for) the United States Mint.
The Hamilton report was finished in 1791, not 1790.
Denga >>
Am I the only one who finds the obvious rivalry between Denga and Firstmint to be fascinating? >>
The only thing better is when RWB joins in as well!
<< <i>
The only thing better is when RWB joins in as well! >>
That would be good to see his take. Have not seen him post since last week though.
A numismatic literature brawl is brewing. Get ready for a lot of powdered-wig pulling and slapping.
My money is on the man with the pretty 1796 quarter.
<< <i>Get ready for a lot of powdered-wig pulling and slapping. >>
Ha!
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
With that having been said, I'll present further remarks based on my research, about what was challenged.
Denga seems to be purposely confusing "Mint supervision" to actual production of coinage at the US Mint. This was also done in the article about the Brasher's assays having an influence on all gold coinage struck at the US Mint from 1795-1933. It's like trying to make apples into oranges, and simply can't be considered in the same context.
The 1792 Half Dismes were not struck in the United States Mint. They were made before the deed to the property was signed over to the government. His comment about these pieces being assayed "in (or for)" is purposely non-specific and covers an either/or situation. He knows full well where they were struck, and it was not in the US Mint. He is correct in that no body knows is who assayed the bullion for those pieces and the few silver dimes that were made at the same time. That information has not been uncovered and may not still exist. However, a finished, ready for coinage production Mint is exactly what makes the entire facility a Mint - just like any other business. In this case, the fact remains that the United States Mint produced its first United States coinage in December 1792.
Albion Cox probably did some assays in 1794 & 1795 (the year he died), but these were on foregin coinage, not American. As previously stated, David Ott was commissioned by Director Rittenhouse in December 1792 to comply with the Congressional mandate regarding assays.
Again we see that Denga is not specific in his assertations about a difference, even though he states, "There is a significant difference" (which he did not explain) between these two men (Ott & Cox) who conducted the first assays at the US Mint under Rittenhouse's direction, as required by Congress. They both did assays for the US Mint, in the US Mint, but it was on foreign coinage. Realistically, there is no significant difference in what they did. Perhaps Denga will inform all of us as to that significant difference is which he stated.
Likewise, it would be enlightening if Denga would let us know exactly "in point of fact" about what coinage operations were being conducted away from the Mint in 1793. I differentiated the various "operations" of the US Mint during 1792 in my response (logistical, construction and production), so which 1793 "operations" is he specifically referring to?
The Hamilton report on coinage (presented Jan. 1791) does not disclose anything regarding Ephraim Brasher or any assays made by him, nor are there any records (that I'm aware of) in which Hamilton commissioned Brasher to do assays on behalf of the United States Mint.
Hopefully, the author of the article in The Numismatist will clarify things and validate that claim. It would be nice if he would join in the discussion found in this thread, since he is a member of the boards.
We can all learn something from a respectable exchange of ideas and opinions based on factual research.
is so interesting when people are not sure of the facts due to the
lapse in time.
To be honest, it seems as if we are splitting numismatic hairs, but neither am I a student of the issues related to the early mint products.
Just wondering.....Mike
By further investigation, I found the reported conection to Brasher and Hamilton used in the article. In the November 1979 Garrett 1 sale catalogue by Bowers & Ruddy, lot 607, (also in Garrett 4, p.166) there appears in American State Papers Finance, Vol.1. a reference in 1796 that Brasher "served as assayer for the United States Mint in 1792 pursuant to instructions from the then Secretary of the Treasury".
He was apparently to be paid $27 by a Treasury Dept. warrant for "Estimated Expenditures for the year 1796" rather than a US Mint warrant from 1792; and why it was put forth four years later is not recorded. The warrant was going to be issued to John Shield, reportedly an assignee of Ephraim Brasher, for assays reportedly done on sundry coins of gold and silver.
This makes little sense, especially since Rittenhouse commissioned David Ott to conduct the first US Mint assay in December of 1792. That is when the new furnaces at the Mint became operational. This first assay was so important, that Rittenhouse even invited President Washington to come by around noon.
This Treasury Dept. warrant (and the reported assays by Brasher) needs to be validated, rather than just copied as fact. A fellow researcher did a supplemental search and found that there is nothing regarding Brasher or Shield in any of the search engines having to do with the ASP's. As I mentioned previously, I don't believe everything I read in print. You may call me stubborn, but that's what facts are.
In the same context, there needs to be presented some confirmation for the very first sentence in the article about Adam Eckfeldt saving an unusual, gold coin (BD) from the melting pot in 1838 for the Mint collection. Where is the contemporary documentation for this claim? It isn't found in the 1842 Manual of Coins and Bullion book, or the 1846 Pledges of History book, or the revision of that subject found in the 1852 New Varieties book. The answer is that it too was copied from a lot description found in the Garrett 4 sale, p.167.
According to W E DuBois (Mint Asst. Assayer), who specifically mentions that the BD was in the Mint cabinet in his 1846 Pledges of History book, p.127; the Mint cabinet had been officially commenced in June of 1838. "Long before that date, however, Mr. Adam Eckfeldt...took pains to preserve master-coins of the annual different issues of the Mint, and to retain some of the finest foreign specimens, as they appeared in deposit for recoinage". At this point in time, there is no specific mention of when Eckfeldt saved the Brasher Doubloon found in the Mint Collection.
<< <i>So can a coin that was struck at a place other than the US Mint (i.e. prior to its physical construction) actually be considered a US Mint issue? Can such a coin be considered struck by the US Mint? >>
I would say yes. The US mint set up a press to strike commemorative coins at the Panama Pacific Expo fair grounds. This was outside the physical U.S. mint. I'm sure there may be other examples.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
... and knowing a couple of secret handshakes, I got my money on the authority.
Denga seems to be purposely confusing "Mint supervision" to actual production of coinage at the US Mint. This was also done in the article about the Brasher's assays having an influence on all gold coinage struck at the US Mint from 1795-1933. It's like trying to make apples into oranges, and simply can't be considered in the same context.
The 1792 Half Dismes were not struck in the United States Mint. They were made before the deed to the property was signed over to the government. His comment about these pieces being assayed "in (or for)" is purposely non-specific and covers an either/or situation. He knows full well where they were struck, and it was not in the US Mint. He is correct in that no body knows is who assayed the bullion for those pieces and the few silver dimes that were made at the same time. That information has not been uncovered and may not still exist. However, a finished, ready for coinage production Mint is exactly what makes the entire facility a Mint - just like any other business. In this case, the fact remains that the United States Mint produced its first United States coinage in December 1792.
The half dismes of July 1792 were struck in the U.S. Mint. The fact that the buildings of the first mint had not been
constructed is meaningless. A building does not make a mint, though it is useful. The staff was certainly there.
Firstmint also states that dismes were made at the same time but this is pure speculation. The December 1792
“coinage” referred to by firstmint is a handful of patterns. There is a difference between patterns and coinage for
circulation. There are two dates for the beginning of coinage at the U.S.Mint: July 1792 (half dismes) or February
1793 (cents); researchers can make a case for either but not for December 1792.
Albion Cox probably did some assays in 1794 & 1795 (the year he died), but these were on foregin coinage, not American. As previously stated, David Ott was commissioned by Director Rittenhouse in December 1792 to comply with the Congressional mandate regarding assays.
Again we see that Denga is not specific in his assertations about a difference, even though he states, "There is a significant difference" (which he did not explain) between these two men (Ott & Cox) who conducted the first assays at the US Mint under Rittenhouse's direction, as required by Congress. They both did assays for the US Mint, in the US Mint, but it was on foreign coinage. Realistically, there is no significant difference in what they did. Perhaps Denga will inform all of us as to that significant difference is which he stated.
Ott was doing work for Congress, Cox for the Mint. One would think that firstmint knows the difference between
the two institutions. I did not think it necessary to explain what is obvious. Congress needed to know the value of
foreign coins in setting values for payments of import duties.
Likewise, it would be enlightening if Denga would let us know exactly "in point of fact" about what coinage operations were being conducted away from the Mint in 1793. I differentiated the various "operations" of the US Mint during 1792 in my response (logistical, construction and production), so which 1793 "operations" is he specifically referring to?
Part of the copper operations were carried out in the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia. This was still
being done in 1796. Those who have done research in the early Mint are well aware of this.
The Hamilton report on coinage (presented Jan. 1791) does not disclose anything regarding Ephraim Brasher or any assays made by him, nor are there any records (that I'm aware of) in which Hamilton commissioned Brasher to do assays on behalf of the United States Mint.
Hamilton does not mention Brasher nor anyone else for that matter. The assays were certainly undertaken
while the government was still in New York and Brasher was well known to both Hamilton and Washington.
If not Brasher, then who?
Hopefully, the author of the article in The Numismatist will clarify things and validate that claim. It would be nice if he would join in the discussion found in this thread, since he is a member of the boards.
We can all learn something from a respectable exchange of ideas and opinions based on factual research.
Denga
To all - By further investigation, I found the reported conection to Brasher and Hamilton used in the article. In the November 1979 Garrett 1 sale catalogue by Bowers & Ruddy, lot 607, (also in Garrett 4, p.166) there appears in American State Papers Finance, Vol.1. a reference in 1796 that Brasher "served as assayer for the United States Mint in 1792 pursuant to instructions from the then Secretary of the Treasury".
He was apparently to be paid $27 by a Treasury Dept. warrant for "Estimated Expenditures for the year 1796" rather than a US Mint warrant from 1792; and why it was put forth four years later is not recorded. The warrant was going to be issued to John Shield, reportedly an assignee of Ephraim Brasher, for assays reportedly done on sundry coins of gold and silver.
Firstmint should have looked up the citation, which is on page 366 of the ASP Finance, Volume I. The
$27 is in fact stated to have been paid for assays in 1792 but this is a misprint for 1790 when the assays
were done for Hamilton. (Hamilton would not have been ordering assays in 1792 as Secretary of State
Thomas Jefferson was in overall charge of the Mint.) The payment, which is late as were many of that
era, is by Treasury warrant because the work was done for Congress, not the Mint.
The payment would seem to be conclusive proof that Brasher did assays for Hamilton in 1790 when the
Secretary was preparing his 15,000 word report on the Mint and Coinage for Congress.
This makes little sense, especially since Rittenhouse commissioned David Ott to conduct the first US Mint assay in December of 1792. That is when the new furnaces at the Mint became operational. This first assay was so important, that Rittenhouse even invited President Washington to come by around noon.
This Treasury Dept. warrant (and the reported assays by Brasher) needs to be validated, rather than just copied as fact. A fellow researcher did a supplemental search and found that there is nothing regarding Brasher or Shield in any of the search engines having to do with the ASP's. As I mentioned previously, I don't believe everything I read in print. You may call me stubborn, but that's what facts are.
The entry in American State Papers (ASP) under date of November 25, 1795, would seem to be
conclusive. That it has a typo (1792 for 1790) is no reason to exclude it. The original records for
this warrant (No. 5502) may well still exist in the Archives.
In the same context, there needs to be presented some confirmation for the very first sentence in the article about Adam Eckfeldt saving an unusual, gold coin (BD) from the melting pot in 1838 for the Mint collection. Where is the contemporary documentation for this claim? It isn't found in the 1842 Manual of Coins and Bullion book, or the 1846 Pledges of History book, or the revision of that subject found in the 1852 New Varieties book. The answer is that it too was copied from a lot description found in the Garrett 4 sale, p.167.
According to W E DuBois (Mint Asst. Assayer), who specifically mentions that the BD was in the Mint cabinet in his 1846 Pledges of History book, p.127; the Mint cabinet had been officially commenced in June of 1838. "Long before that date, however, Mr. Adam Eckfeldt...took pains to preserve master-coins of the annual different issues of the Mint, and to retain some of the finest foreign specimens, as they appeared in deposit for recoinage". At this point in time, there is no specific mention of when Eckfeldt saved the Brasher Doubloon found in the Mint Collection.
Denga
I hope that others will do their own research to determine the validation of what Denga presents. I have already done that, and that is the primary reason why we have different viewpoints.
Ephraim Brasher must have been a very wealthy individual back in the 1790's to have waited (now 6 years according to Denga) to receive a payment from Mr. Hamilton for his alleged assays.
Rather than going back and forth ad inifitum, Id like to see others participate and make comment, which I hope will include the author of the article found in the OP.
<< <i>It is certainly interesting to find out different viewpoints about America's numismatic past. From Denga, we learn about misprints in official government publications and that coins were struck in July 1792 in the United States Mint. That must be news to Rittenhouse, Voigt, Harper, and Jefferson, who were there and relate it differently from what Denga states.
I hope that others will do their own research to determine the validation of what Denga presents. I have already done that, and that is the primary reason why we have different viewpoints.
Ephraim Brasher must have been a very wealthy individual back in the 1790's to have waited (now 6 years according to Denga) to receive a payment from Mr. Hamilton for his alleged assays.
Rather than going back and forth ad inifitum, Id like to see others participate and make comment, which I hope will include the author of the article found in the OP. >>
My comment is that I am surprised that two obviously intelligent individuals like you and Denga with a shared interest and apparent expertise in this arcane field cannot seem to respond to one another's posts without inserting all kinds of nasty little digs and insinuations that the other is a wacko.
It is certainly interesting to find out different viewpoints about America's numismatic past. From Denga, we learn about misprints in official government publications and that coins were struck in July 1792 in the United States Mint. That must be news to Rittenhouse, Voigt, and Jefferson, who were there and relate it differently from what Denga states. Mr Harper may have doubts about this as well.
I hope that others will do their own research to determine the validation of what Denga presents. I have already done that, and that is the primary reason why we have different viewpoints.
Ephraim Brasher must have been a very wealthy individual back in the 1790's to have waited (now 6 years according to Denga) to receive a payment from Mr. Hamilton for his alleged assays.
Rather than going back and forth ad inifitum, Id like to see others participate and make comment, which I hope will include the author of the article found in the OP.
Although I disagree with most of the above there is one statement worth considering. Firstmint suggests that what
I say should be investigated for accuracy. Why not what both of us say?
Denga
Denga wrote an article titled " The Mint and Pattern Coinage of 1792" found in the summer 1990 issue of Legacy (by Heritage Galleries). He has written similar articles for different publications as well.
I wrote a book titled "Henry Voigt and Others, Involved with America's Early Coinage" which is available from me (pm if you are interested).
Now, let's get back to the Brasher Doubloon.
For the record - I admire and respect everyone who does research, and writes about that research in the numismatic field. That way, we can all have the opportunity to learn.
However, criticism is a part of learning, and I readily accept plenty of that for pointing out a few errors based on my research. Other people are free to do that with what I write about as well, even if they don't do a comprehensive amount of their own research before criticising me. At least I'm willing to change my learning and knowledge if shown to be incorrect.
It's the overpromotional aspect about the marketing of numismatic materials that I disagree with, especially if it is based on personal gain or greed and not on historical reality.