Theoretically, are Fugio Cents legal tender?
PerryHall
Posts: 46,369 ✭✭✭✭✭
They were authorized and struck by a contractor hired by the government of the United States of America. So, are they legal tender coins?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
0
Comments
<< <i>They were authorized and struck by a contractor hired by the government of the United States of America. So, are they legal tender coins? >>
Were they monetized?
<< <i>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I would say that the Coinage Act of 1792 would have made anything earlier obsolete. >>
But didn't the Coinage Act of 1965 make any coins ever produced by the United States legal tender, including trade dollars whose legal tender status were earlier removed?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I would say that the Coinage Act of 1792 would have made anything earlier obsolete. >>
But didn't the Coinage Act of 1965 make any coins ever produced by the United States legal tender, including trade dollars whose legal tender status were earlier removed? >>
If they were not officially released, they may not be considered coins of the United States and may not qualify for that status.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I would say that the Coinage Act of 1792 would have made anything earlier obsolete. >>
But didn't the Coinage Act of 1965 make any coins ever produced by the United States legal tender, including trade dollars whose legal tender status were earlier removed? >>
If they were not officially released, they may not be considered coins of the United States and may not qualify for that status. >>
Considering the number of well circulated examples, they must have been released into circulation by someone. Why would you ever thing they weren't officially released? Unless there was official documentation to the contrary, I have to assume they were officially released.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I would say that the Coinage Act of 1792 would have made anything earlier obsolete. >>
But didn't the Coinage Act of 1965 make any coins ever produced by the United States legal tender, including trade dollars whose legal tender status were earlier removed? >>
If they were not officially released, they may not be considered coins of the United States and may not qualify for that status. >>
Considering the number of well circulated examples, they must have been released into circulation by someone. Why would you ever thing they weren't officially released? Unless there was official documentation to the contrary, I have to assume they were officially released. >>
I haven't seen official documentation either way, but there are articles that say these were never released for circulation by the government and were sold at a loss. Perhaps they were sold as scrap metal and the buyer distributed them. I really don't know but circulated examples may not mean the US government circulated them.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
James Jarvis was awarded the contract to produce Fugios. He put his father-in-law, Samuel Broome, in charge of the minting operations and went to Europe in search of copper and assistance. Jarvis sought the assistance of Matthew Boulton, owner of the Soho Mint in Birmingham, and others, but without cash up front, Jarvis was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Broome used much of the federal copper to mint about three and a half million 1787 Connecticut coppers, which were lighter in weight and thus more profitable than the Fugio's. In the end Broome made only about 400,000 Fugio cents (about four tons out of the 300 tons of coppers they had been contracted to produce) which were sent to the U.S. Treasury on May 21, 1788. That so few coins had been minted and that those coins were slightly underweight concerned the Congress, but that no payment had been made on the thirty tons of copper the federal government had delivered to Jarvis led the Congress to void his contract on September 16, 1788. This was followed by a congressional report on September 30, 1788 stating Jarvis had received a large quantity of federal copper but had only paid for a small portion and that "the Board of Treasury will take effectual measures to recover [the remainder] as soon as possible."
Thomas Machin then bought Jarvis's equipment, and Broome joined Jarvis in Europe. The diemaker Abel Buell gave his equipment to his son Benjamin and also fled the country. The "Congress Coppers" as the Fugio's were called did not see much use. Some may have circulated in Massachusetts as numismatists in the 1840's and 1850's considered them to be from Massachusetts. On July 9, 1789, a New York merchant named Royal Flint purchased all of the Fugios remaining in the Treasury on credit at about one-third face value. However thirteen days later on July 20 a copper panic occurred devaluing most coppers by about seventy-five per cent of their value; this loss landed Flint in debtor's prison.
<< <i>The information below and much more can be found at the University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections website on colonial and other early American coins:
James Jarvis was awarded the contract to produce Fugios. He put his father-in-law, Samuel Broome, in charge of the minting operations and went to Europe in search of copper and assistance. Jarvis sought the assistance of Matthew Boulton, owner of the Soho Mint in Birmingham, and others, but without cash up front, Jarvis was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Broome used much of the federal copper to mint about three and a half million 1787 Connecticut coppers, which were lighter in weight and thus more profitable than the Fugio's. In the end Broome made only about 400,000 Fugio cents (about four tons out of the 300 tons of coppers they had been contracted to produce) which were sent to the U.S. Treasury on May 21, 1788. That so few coins had been minted and that those coins were slightly underweight concerned the Congress, but that no payment had been made on the thirty tons of copper the federal government had delivered to Jarvis led the Congress to void his contract on September 16, 1788. This was followed by a congressional report on September 30, 1788 stating Jarvis had received a large quantity of federal copper but had only paid for a small portion and that "the Board of Treasury will take effectual measures to recover [the remainder] as soon as possible."
Thomas Machin then bought Jarvis's equipment, and Broome joined Jarvis in Europe. The diemaker Abel Buell gave his equipment to his son Benjamin and also fled the country. The "Congress Coppers" as the Fugio's were called did not see much use. Some may have circulated in Massachusetts as numismatists in the 1840's and 1850's considered them to be from Massachusetts. On July 9, 1789, a New York merchant named Royal Flint purchased all of the Fugios remaining in the Treasury on credit at about one-third face value. However thirteen days later on July 20 a copper panic occurred devaluing most coppers by about seventy-five per cent of their value; this loss landed Flint in debtor's prison. >>
That's interesting. It seems like they were not circulated contemporary to their minting indicating they were not released by Congress.
<< <i>Where's Fletcher been anyway? >>
Good question. It's been some time.
The Coinage Act of 1965 was neither the first or last act to make "all" USA coins legal tender. The first was 1933. But none of them specfically mention the trade dollar nor contain the "any other law notwithstanding" clause.
The Treasury Department has ruled that the legal tender status of trade dollars is indeterminate until a judicial determination is made. It is further noted that a judge might not be too pleased to be presented with this case.
Back when the Treasury Cash Room was still opened, The Treasury agreed to redeem trade dollars dollar for dollar. By then melt value was over $1 and collector value much more that that. (My first blue book listed common trade dollars at 60 and 80 CENTS each.)
<< <i>
<< <i>The information below and much more can be found at the University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections website on colonial and other early American coins:
James Jarvis was awarded the contract to produce Fugios. He put his father-in-law, Samuel Broome, in charge of the minting operations and went to Europe in search of copper and assistance. Jarvis sought the assistance of Matthew Boulton, owner of the Soho Mint in Birmingham, and others, but without cash up front, Jarvis was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Broome used much of the federal copper to mint about three and a half million 1787 Connecticut coppers, which were lighter in weight and thus more profitable than the Fugio's. In the end Broome made only about 400,000 Fugio cents (about four tons out of the 300 tons of coppers they had been contracted to produce) which were sent to the U.S. Treasury on May 21, 1788. That so few coins had been minted and that those coins were slightly underweight concerned the Congress, but that no payment had been made on the thirty tons of copper the federal government had delivered to Jarvis led the Congress to void his contract on September 16, 1788. This was followed by a congressional report on September 30, 1788 stating Jarvis had received a large quantity of federal copper but had only paid for a small portion and that "the Board of Treasury will take effectual measures to recover [the remainder] as soon as possible."
Thomas Machin then bought Jarvis's equipment, and Broome joined Jarvis in Europe. The diemaker Abel Buell gave his equipment to his son Benjamin and also fled the country. The "Congress Coppers" as the Fugio's were called did not see much use. Some may have circulated in Massachusetts as numismatists in the 1840's and 1850's considered them to be from Massachusetts. On July 9, 1789, a New York merchant named Royal Flint purchased all of the Fugios remaining in the Treasury on credit at about one-third face value. However thirteen days later on July 20 a copper panic occurred devaluing most coppers by about seventy-five per cent of their value; this loss landed Flint in debtor's prison. >>
That's interesting. It seems like they were not circulated contemporary to their minting indicating they were not released by Congress. >>
I question the statement that they did not circulate. Other than the hoard pieces, they often come quite well circulated.
I guess the question is, when did that circulation begin?
TD
<< <i>I question the statement that they did not circulate. Other than the hoard pieces, they often come quite well circulated.
I guess the question is, when did that circulation begin?
TD >>
Indeed...this actually raises many more questions:
How many Fugios did Flint actually purchase from the Treasury?
What happened to those pieces after he went to debtor's prison?
Of the approximately 400,000 Fugios produced, how many actually still exist?
Since the story of Flint and Jarvis only takes us to the mid 1780s, I suspect Fugios continued to circulate among common folk in the colonies based on their copper value long after the US mint began operations.
My gut reaction was that, no, the fugio cent would not be legal tender. But the coinage act of
1965 section 102 specifically says all coins currencies of the United States regardless of when
coined or issued are legal tender. It would be unamerican to claim a coin legally contracted by
the first American government in 1776 would be anything other than legal tender.
If it mattered the courts would probably agree. Now days it's safe to predict that if it mattered
the courts would have to decide.
<< <i>Made me look.
My gut reaction was that, no, the fugio cent would not be legal tender. But the coinage act of
1965 section 102 specifically says all coins currencies of the United States regardless of when
coined or issued are legal tender. It would be unamerican to claim a coin legally contracted by
the first American government in 1776 would be anything other than legal tender.
If it mattered the courts would probably agree. Now days it's safe to predict that if it mattered
the courts would have to decide. >>
so the 33 gold 20$ WAS coined...and was distributed by our government to one king farouk.... makes all of them legal!
unless we now have a different country than the "united states" and its first american government.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>Made me look.
My gut reaction was that, no, the fugio cent would not be legal tender. But the coinage act of
1965 section 102 specifically says all coins currencies of the United States regardless of when
coined or issued are legal tender. It would be unamerican to claim a coin legally contracted by
the first American government in 1776 would be anything other than legal tender.
If it mattered the courts would probably agree. Now days it's safe to predict that if it mattered
the courts would have to decide. >>
Oh, the lawyers could have a field day arguing either side of the fact that the Fugio cents were authorized by the Continental Congress in 1787, just before we changed governments under the Constitution of 1787 which took effect in 1788, and so they either are or are not coinage of the current government.
Remember that they celebrated the Centennial of American Independence in 1876 and the Sesquicentennial of American Independence in 1926, rather than the 100th and 150th birthdays of the United States of America.
Happy 4th!
<< <i>
Oh, the lawyers could have a field day arguing either side of the fact that the Fugio cents were authorized by the Continental Congress in 1787, just before we changed governments under the Constitution of 1787 which took effect in 1788, and so they either are or are not coinage of the current government.
Remember that they celebrated the Centennial of American Independence in 1876 and the Sesquicentennial of American Independence in 1926, rather than the 100th and 150th birthdays of the United States of America.
Happy 4th >>
I had just assumed that the date on them was their year of manufacture.
Being the result of an act of Congress should work for the lawyers arguing their legal tender status.
<< <i>Wow, this whole thing bursts my bubble. I had thought the Fugio cent was the very first coin officially authorized by the U.S. congress. And now their legal tender status is in doubt. >>
The Continental Congress of the Confederation passed a resolution on April 21, 1787 for the contract coining of a national copper cent. About two and a half months later they agreed on a design...
"No state shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of debts;" Evidently no paper or copper was wanted. Also there is a big loophole there. It doesn't say Congress is prohibited.