Decent question. All I know is, I'd sure love to have one in my pocket.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly."
I am by no means an expert on this subject but if I remember correctly George Washington was in such a rush to get coinage minted that he furnished his and Martha's silverware to make the coins. He gave them out to friends and dignitaries as gifts. It gave credibility to the new country. I don't know about the legality or the law that covered this but I don't believe it is listed as an official coin. But it does say United States on it and I would deffinitely love to own one be it pattern or coin.
Ron
Collect for the love of the hobby, the beauty of the coins, and enjoy the ride.
At the U.S. Mint, during A.I.P. orientation, Director Fore showed us pictures of the Half Disme and took credit on behalf the U.S. Mint for the coin... 1,500 were made & it did circulate... so I say coin.
This question is along the lines of the one we disussed a few months can on coins that never circulated but had cabinet friction and therefore are called AU 58.
This is a question of opinion. It is hard to think a government would issue a first coin with very little actual value (at the time) and it not be a test, trial or pattern.
IMHO - pattern was the original intent for the coin.
I seldom check PM's but do check emails often jason@seated.org
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
The 1792 half disme was decidedly not a pattern coin. It was made for use in general circulation, and here is a list of reasons why that is true:
- The estimated mintage of 1,500 is way too high for this piece to be classified as an experimental coin.
- All about 20 of the estimated 300 survivors are Mint State coins. The rest are in the ciruclated grades. In fact most of the survivors are in very low grades of preservation.
- The coins were struck in the quantities cited above at location other than the site of the first U.S. mint. In fact they were struck before the U.S. mint property had been purchased. This would indicate that these coins were a sort of “emergency coinage” that government officials deemed necessary at the time. Later true pattern coins were produced at the U.S. mint site in 1792 before it officially opened in 1793.
- This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter:
“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>This is a question of opinion. It is hard to think a government would issue a first coin with very little actual value (at the time) and it not be a test, trial or pattern. >>
I respectfully disagree with this opinion.
First, five cents in silver, in that day, was good deal more money than five cents is today.
Secondly, Washington in his statement, “… the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them,” was in reference to the fact the economy was flooded with counterfeit and low weight copper coins. The Articles of Confederation government had tired to address this issue in 1787 with the Fugio Cent without success.
This attempt, even though it was limited by the small mintage, was an initial attempt to address that issue.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter: “There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins.
Here are a few other pieces of contemporary correspondence (found in the Philadelphia Mint archives by researcher Karl Moulton) that that give some indications of what the intentions were of President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and then Mint Director David Rittenhouse:
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
<< <i>Here are a few other pieces of contemporary correspondence (found in the Philadelphia Mint archives by researcher Karl Moulton) that that give some indications of what the intentions were of President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and then Mint Director David Rittenhouse:
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
So, based on the above and other posts in this thread, it seems that there is solid evidence that the 1792 Half Dismes are not patterns.
But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington.
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
There are a couple of reasons.
First, Washington and company probably only had a limited amount of silver with which to work. The half disme allowed them to spread their limited amount of silver as far as possible. They also probably had only one set of dies, half dismes, that were available.
Second, the dismes were made at the first U.S. mint site. Under the Coinage Act of 1792, the chief coiner and the chief assayer had to each had to post bonds of $10,000 each before they could handle gold or silver. Neither of those officials could do that, and would not be able to do it until the bonds were lowered and Thomas Jefferson secured loans for them to post the reduced amounts. This is the reason that silver dollars were not issued until October of 1794. Therefore no significant coinage of silver dismes could be made at the mint legally.
I have understood that all of the 1792 half dismes were coined in one day at John Harper’s workshop under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, as secretary of state, was responsible for mint operations and as a senior officer could preside over the coinage without the bonds.
<< <i>So, does this mean they were made from 75 Spanish dollars? >>
Probably so. The Spanish silver dollar was the most common silver currency that was available in the United States at that time. If Washington did supply the silver, it was probably in the form of Spanish silver dollars, with perhaps a few other foreign coins in the mix. Martha definitely did not have to give up her silverware if the Washingtons supplied it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
True, the 1792 Dismes were mentioned by both Rittenhouse and Washington as being desired to be coined; however, there is no record of any quantity of them being received by Jefferson as "coins."
For those who might not be familiar with the coin in question, here is a 1792 half disme.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>The 1792 half disme was decidedly not a pattern coin. It was made for use in general circulation, and here is a list of reasons why that is true:
- The estimated mintage of 1,500 is way too high for this piece to be classified as an experimental coin.
- All about 20 of the estimated 300 survivors are Mint State coins. The rest are in the ciruclated grades. In fact most of the survivors are in very low grades of preservation.
- The coins were struck in the quantities cited above at location other than the site of the first U.S. mint. In fact they were struck before the U.S. mint property had been purchased. This would indicate that these coins were a sort of “emergency coinage” that government officials deemed necessary at the time. Later true pattern coins were produced at the U.S. mint site in 1792 before it officially opened in 1793.
- This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter:
“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins. >>
What he says..... TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The 1792 half disme had traditionally been viewed as a pattern and it had been listed in the Redbook (and still is) in the "Proposed Coinage" pattern section.
We didn't think that was the case. About 15 years ago or so, we had a team of outside experts, everyone from Dave Bowers to John Love, and I'd send out questionaires about various numismatic structure issues. We asked questions like, "The $4 Stellas are obviously patterns, but should they be included in a type set of proof gold anyway?" (Silver dollar expert Wayne Miller had a great reply to that question, "Stellas should be part of the proof gold type set because if they are not included they would get lonely without their little brothers and sisters.")
All of our experts thought the 1792 half disme was a regular issue U.S. coin...the first regular issue U.S. coin. So we called it that and included it as such in the PCGS Set Registry and Pop Report, etc. The marketplace agreed and by the way, prices soared.
Dave Bowers told me the Martha Washington story is not based in fact. He's probably right (isn't he always) but I sometimes can't help myself and tell people to imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson sitting around the dinner table and Martha saying, "Well George, if it's really that important to you and Tom."
I have believed that the 1792 half disme is a regular issue for many years and for many reasons, including what President Washington said in his address of November 6, 1792, the fact that the vast majority are circulated, and most collectors of early half dimes include it as part of the set they are working on. D. W. Valentine in his book "The United States Half Dimes" quotes from Washington's speech, and states "In the light of this testimony, we may question the conclusion of Crosby and those who have followed him in classifying the half disme as a pattern coin." In the book "Federal Half Dimes 1792 - 1837", authors Russell Logan and John McCloskey include the 1792 half disme as a regular Federal issue.
Now, what needs to be done to get the Redbook to classify the 1792 half disme as a regular issue coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
There are a couple of reasons.
First, Washington and company probably only had a limited amount of silver with which to work. The half disme allowed them to spread their limited amount of silver as far as possible. They also probably had only one set of dies, half dismes, that were available.
Second, the dismes were made at the first U.S. mint site. Under the Coinage Act of 1792, the chief coiner and the chief assayer had to each had to post bonds of $10,000 each before they could handle gold or silver. Neither of those officials could do that, and would not be able to do it until the bonds were lowered and Thomas Jefferson secured loans for them to post the reduced amounts. This is the reason that silver dollars were not issued until October of 1794. Therefore no significant coinage of silver dismes could be made at the mint legally.
I have understood that all of the 1792 half dismes were coined in one day at John Harper’s workshop under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, as secretary of state, was responsible for mint operations and as a senior officer could preside over the coinage without the bonds.
<< <i>
The lack of the required bonds to coin is the strongest argument against the Half Dismes being regular issue coins. However, I think it is safe to say that they are a regular issue coin struck with good intent but without legal authorization.
The same could be said about the 1856 Flying Eagle cents, which were (at least mostly, if not all) struck before the passage of the Coinage Act of 1857. They have come to be accepted as regular issue coins.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>I bought a nice 1792 half disme in a PCGS holder in the mid 1990's.Just after that the price went into orbit. >>
That was about the same time that I bought my piece.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I fail to understand how a pattern might not have mintages more than a few (say 1500), leaked into circulation as they do represent currency, and so have circulated specimens of a "pattern". They were made that year and evidently on a trial basis since they were not continued, correct?
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>I bought a nice 1792 half disme in a PCGS holder in the mid 1990's.Just after that the price went into orbit. >>
That was about the same time that I bought my piece. >>
I wish I bought mine then (along with a 1799 Eagle). >>
Well.........
I had a few half disme's . The lowest grade I had was a holed coin with an ANACS Certificate, from Don Kagin and was just a little too high priced to consider. Several strong VF coins in the 12K-15K range but I thought I remember an XF coin at 18K.
One of my favorite favorite coins. Are they still a good value at todays' levels?
<< <i>We want to say the mint started off with $75 face value of coin production? >>
You gotta start somewhere. The total production of Chain cents could have been bought for $361.03 face, and the entire production for 1793 for $1,281.79.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
My vote would be "not". Believe the intention was for the coin to circulate due to the lack of circulating coinage and our nation's leaders (primarily GW) desire to have an "American made" product out on the street.
<< <i>My vote would be "not". Believe the intention was for the coin to circulate due to the lack of circulating coinage and our nation's leaders (primarily GW) desire to have an "American made" product out on the street.
'dude >>
Before you continue to hold that opinion you should drop back to the "forbidden" sections of the Red Book that are before the 1793 half cent. There you will find many types of copper coins and tokens, in addition to the many foreign coins, not listed in the Red Book, that circulated in America before the United States was united under the Constitution. There were legal state coppers, privately issued tokens like the Nova Constellatio coppers and worst of all, light weight counterfeit pieces issued by places like Machin’s Mill.
Machin’s Mill was the most famous counterfeiter of the period, but there were others whose products were of an even lower quality. If you could make something out of copper that was round, brown and looked like someone else had used it (Many of the these pieces were “struck in VF condition.”) chances were you could have gotten someone to take it as money. After a while this plethora light weight junk copper was destroying the value of money in circulation to the economic detriment of the average citizen. The Fugio Cent and the 1792 half disme were early attempts by the central government to alleviate the problem.
Today modern Americans don’t know how lucky we are to have a more or less stable monetary system. Aside from the occasional counterfeit we can accept and spend our money without a second thought because it has a stable value. That stability only started to come about after the Civil War. People can rant about the Federal Reserve System and threats we face today from inflation, but back in the 19th century and before, it was much worse.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Here are a few other pieces of contemporary correspondence (found in the Philadelphia Mint archives by researcher Karl Moulton) that that give some indications of what the intentions were of President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and then Mint Director David Rittenhouse:
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
So Jefferson "delivered" the 75 Spanish dollars that were then converted into about 1500 half dimes.
On whose behalf was he delivering them, or, in other words, who was he delivering them from to the new Mint? Washington, or the accounts of the USA?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The 1792 half disme reminds me of the 1856 flying eagle cent---high minage for a pattern, many entered circulation, and many small cent collectors include them in their collection of business strike cents even though others consider them as being a pattern.
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 don't think it is a pattern in the traditionals sense of the word, but I do consider it experimental. Bear with me here. I think they were really produced to gague the public's reaction to a newly minted american coin. The mintage was small, but large enough to get a good idea how well they would be recieved. So in the end it functioned as a limited business strike, but was envisioned as a test piece, but a public test...not a numismatic one.
I firmly believe these coins served a vital function, it was necessary for the government to guage the people's reaction before begining more sizable endeavors regarding coinage. I don't think it was minted just as a souvenir as some have said, especially considering the amount of wear the majority received. So really, it isn't a pattern, and it isn't truly a business strike. I DO feel that it deserves a place among mainstream american coinage, it served it's function well, because as we see, america continued with a illustrious (forgive the pun) carrer of fedral coinage because of the results of this test.
Had the introduction of the Half Disme failed, I believe many years would have transpired before a fedral coinage would have been implemented...shoot!...They may have decided that each state have it's own coinage. That's really how most amercans viewed the United States at the time, as individual in entity but collective for defense. In the imortal words of Shelby Foote, "Before the <Civil> war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'.
Perhaps the half-disme was the first step to becoming a "WE." It was one of the first steps toward state unification, at least in the fiscal realm, and perhaps started a gradual shift in mental perception of the people as well. It's an important coin in the annals of american history, end of story.
I have heard a story (who knows...it might even be true) that when the Netherlands was thinking of re-introducing the pre-war 2-1/2 Gulden denomination in 1959, the Mint did some low-key testing of the public demand for the coin by simply striking a few hundred coins and then letting the Mint master and one other government official walk around Amsterdam spending them at small stores and asking people what they thought of the coin. The reaction was favorable, and so they went into production and the "patterns" became common coins.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I think that the often repeated figure of about 300 1792 Half Dismes surviving is too high. The 1794 Silver Dollar has about 150 pieces known. The 1792 Half Disme has less graded by the services ,and appears less often at auction.I would estimate that a better number would be about 125 survivors.In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1792 Half Disme but do not own ( I wish that I did ) a 1794 Silver Dollar.
<< <i>I think that the often repeated figure of about 300 1792 Half Dismes surviving is too high. The 1794 Silver Dollar has about 150 pieces known. The 1792 Half Disme has less graded by the services ,and appears less often at auction.I would estimate that a better number would be about 125 survivors.In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1792 Half Disme but do not own ( I wish that I did ) a 1794 Silver Dollar. >>
In my time as a collector (over 35 years with a willingness to pay "serious money") I've seen a decent number of 1792 half dismes that could not be graded, and it was obvious that they could not be graded because of a hole, bent or some other problem. Perhaps now that the major services will put these coins into net graded or "genuine" holders we will see more certified, but I think that the 1792 half disme, if you ignore the grade, is more common than the 1794 silver dollar.
And yes, I've a got a dog in the hunt. I own a 1792 half disme in VF, but I don't own a 1794 silver dollar, and probably never will own one.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I think that the often repeated figure of about 300 1792 Half Dismes surviving is too high. The 1794 Silver Dollar has about 150 pieces known. The 1792 Half Disme has less graded by the services ,and appears less often at auction.I would estimate that a better number would be about 125 survivors.In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1792 Half Disme but do not own ( I wish that I did ) a 1794 Silver Dollar. >>
In my time as a collector (over 35 years with a willingness to pay "serious money") I've seen a decent number of 1792 half dismes that could not be graded, and it was obvious that they could not be graded because of a hole, bent or some other problem. Perhaps now that the major services will put these coins into net graded or "genuine" holders we will see more certified, but I think that the 1792 half disme, if you ignore the grade, is more common than the 1794 silver dollar. >>
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
James Ross Snowden was Director of the US Mint from 1853 to 1861 and Treasurer of the US Mint from 1847 to 1850. He was also a numismatic researcher and author, having published several books. I am fortunate to own a couple, here are excerpts from his 1858 book "The Mint Manual Of Coins Of All Nations," in which Snowden gives his perspective on the 1792 Half Dismes:
pg 99-100: "These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116: "Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dismes as patterns in 1858.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I have been a serious collector for over 50 years and have attended hundreds of coin shows including every ANA summer convention since 1970. I looked at a lot of 1792 Half Dismes for over 5 years before I purchased the one that I have. I have continued to seek out these coins and 1794 Silver Dollars at each show that I attend.Yes, there are a lot of Half Dismes that will not slab but I have seen a fair number of 1794 Dollars that have problems and will not slab.For about a decade I kept a log of each 1792 Half Disme and 1794 Dollar that appeared at auction.I checked hundreds of auction catalogs going back to the 1940's .The 1792 Half Disme appeared less often at auction than the 1794 Dollar.Unfortunately I lost my log during our move a few years ago and have not had the time to recreate the list.
<< <i>James Ross Snowden was Director of the US Mint from 1853 to 1861 and Treasurer of the US Mint from 1847 to 1850. He was also a numismatic researcher and author, having published several books. I am fortunate to own a couple, here are excerpts from his 1858 book "The Mint Manual Of Coins Of All Nations," in which Snowden gives his perspective on the 1792 Half Dimes:
pg 99-100: "These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116: "Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dimes as patterns in 1858. >>
Snowden certainly was a key figure in the history of the Mint, and is due a great amount of respect. That being said, he did not become involved with the Mint until 55 years after the half dismes were produced, so his statements cannot be deemed to be based on first-person, contemporaneous knowledge. Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and David Rittenhouse were actually (and personally) involved at the time they were struck. David Rittenhouse requested -- in writing -- permission to begin producing coins for circulation in accordance with the Mint Act of 1792. George Washington approved Rittenhouse's request -- in writing. Thomas Jefferson noted after the production of the half dismes that he had received "coins" -- again, in writing. Finally, Washington stated publicly that there had been a beginning in the coinage of the U.S. to address what was then needed for circulation. I personally find more validity in the contemporaneous written statements of those present at the time and personally involved in the process, than in the written opinions of someone coming along a half a century later.
<< <i>I have been a serious collector for over 50 years and have attended hundreds of coin shows including every ANA summer convention since 1970. I looked at a lot of 1792 Half Dismes for over 5 years before I purchased the one that I have. I have continued to seek out these coins and 1794 Silver Dollars at each show that I attend.Yes, there are a lot of Half Dismes that will not slab but I have seen a fair number of 1794 Dollars that have problems and will not slab.For about a decade I kept a log of each 1792 Half Disme and 1794 Dollar that appeared at auction.I checked hundreds of auction catalogs going back to the 1940's .The 1792 Half Disme appeared less often at auction than the 1794 Dollar.Unfortunately I lost my log during our move a few years ago and have not had the time to recreate the list. >>
I have done an extensive auction survey of 1792 half dismes and 1794 dollars, as well. The 1794 dollar became a well-known rarity very early on, and so due to its fame, it was more likely to trade hands publicly via auction than the half dismes. In fact, even into the 1990's half dismes were not in as much demand and traded more often privately. I remember being offered a PCGS AU58 half disme privately around 1999/2000 at a price around $50K, and I passed on it. (That same coin is now in a PCGS MS63 holder and valued at around $500K. ) These days, of course, both the 1792 half dismes and 1794 dollars are prime candidates for auction.
Oh, and just for full disclosure, I happen to have a nice specimen of each.
<< <i>James Ross Snowden was Director of the US Mint from 1853 to 1861 and Treasurer of the US Mint from 1847 to 1850. He was also a numismatic researcher and author, having published several books. I am fortunate to own a couple, here are excerpts from his 1858 book "The Mint Manual Of Coins Of All Nations," in which Snowden gives his perspective on the 1792 Half Dimes:
pg 99-100: "These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116: "Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dimes as patterns in 1858. >>
Snowden certainly was a key figure in the history of the Mint, and is due a great amount of respect. That being said, he did not become involved with the Mint until 55 years after the half dismes were produced, so his statements cannot be deemed to be based on first-person, contemporaneous knowledge. Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and David Rittenhouse were actually (and personally) involved at the time they were struck. David Rittenhouse requested -- in writing -- permission to begin producing coins for circulation in accordance with the Mint Act of 1792. George Washington approved Rittenhouse's request -- in writing. Thomas Jefferson noted after the production of the half dismes that he had received "coins" -- again, in writing. Finally, Washington stated publicly that there had been a beginning in the coinage of the U.S. to address what was then needed for circulation. I personally find more validity in the contemporaneous written statements of those present at the time and personally involved in the process, than in the written opinions of someone coming along a half a century later. >>
Excellent points. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Coinosaurus
Posts: 9,623 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>Decent question. All I know is, I'd sure love to have one in my pocket.
I would rather have one in my collection.
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
Ron
>>>My Collection
This is a question of opinion. It is hard to think a government would issue a first coin with very little actual value (at the time) and it not be a test, trial or pattern.
IMHO - pattern was the original intent for the coin.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>Not even George and Martha had 1500 friends. Made for circulation. IMO. >>
Before the days of MySpace and Facebook their friends would have maxed out at a few hundred I imagine.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
- The estimated mintage of 1,500 is way too high for this piece to be classified as an experimental coin.
- All about 20 of the estimated 300 survivors are Mint State coins. The rest are in the ciruclated grades. In fact most of the survivors are in very low grades of preservation.
- The coins were struck in the quantities cited above at location other than the site of the first U.S. mint. In fact they were struck before the U.S. mint property had been purchased. This would indicate that these coins were a sort of “emergency coinage” that government officials deemed necessary at the time. Later true pattern coins were produced at the U.S. mint site in 1792 before it officially opened in 1793.
- This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter:
“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins.
Agreed. It was a demonstration for US coinage. OTOH, some of them clearly circulated.
<< <i>This is a question of opinion. It is hard to think a government would issue a first coin with very little actual value (at the time) and it not be a test, trial or pattern. >>
I respectfully disagree with this opinion.
First, five cents in silver, in that day, was good deal more money than five cents is today.
Secondly, Washington in his statement, “… the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them,” was in reference to the fact the economy was flooded with counterfeit and low weight copper coins. The Articles of Confederation government had tired to address this issue in 1787 with the Fugio Cent without success.
This attempt, even though it was limited by the small mintage, was an initial attempt to address that issue.
This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter:
“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins.
Agreed.
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
-- Cardinal
Cardinal-Rittenhouse MS68 half disme to be displayed in Long Beach, February 3rd & 4th
<< <i>Here are a few other pieces of contemporary correspondence (found in the Philadelphia Mint archives by researcher Karl Moulton) that that give some indications of what the intentions were of President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and then Mint Director David Rittenhouse:
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
-- Cardinal
Cardinal-Rittenhouse MS68 half disme to be displayed in Long Beach, February 3rd & 4th >>
So, based on the above and other posts in this thread, it seems that there is solid evidence that the 1792 Half Dismes are not patterns.
But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington.
So, does this mean they were made from 75 Spanish dollars?
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
There are a couple of reasons.
First, Washington and company probably only had a limited amount of silver with which to work. The half disme allowed them to spread their limited amount of silver as far as possible. They also probably had only one set of dies, half dismes, that were available.
Second, the dismes were made at the first U.S. mint site. Under the Coinage Act of 1792, the chief coiner and the chief assayer had to each had to post bonds of $10,000 each before they could handle gold or silver. Neither of those officials could do that, and would not be able to do it until the bonds were lowered and Thomas Jefferson secured loans for them to post the reduced amounts. This is the reason that silver dollars were not issued until October of 1794. Therefore no significant coinage of silver dismes could be made at the mint legally.
I have understood that all of the 1792 half dismes were coined in one day at John Harper’s workshop under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, as secretary of state, was responsible for mint operations and as a senior officer could preside over the coinage without the bonds.
<< <i>So, does this mean they were made from 75 Spanish dollars? >>
Probably so. The Spanish silver dollar was the most common silver currency that was available in the United States at that time. If Washington did supply the silver, it was probably in the form of Spanish silver dollars, with perhaps a few other foreign coins in the mix. Martha definitely did not have to give up her silverware if the Washingtons supplied it.
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
True, the 1792 Dismes were mentioned by both Rittenhouse and Washington as being desired to be coined; however, there is no record of any quantity of them being received by Jefferson as "coins."
<< <i>The 1792 half disme was decidedly not a pattern coin. It was made for use in general circulation, and here is a list of reasons why that is true:
- The estimated mintage of 1,500 is way too high for this piece to be classified as an experimental coin.
- All about 20 of the estimated 300 survivors are Mint State coins. The rest are in the ciruclated grades. In fact most of the survivors are in very low grades of preservation.
- The coins were struck in the quantities cited above at location other than the site of the first U.S. mint. In fact they were struck before the U.S. mint property had been purchased. This would indicate that these coins were a sort of “emergency coinage” that government officials deemed necessary at the time. Later true pattern coins were produced at the U.S. mint site in 1792 before it officially opened in 1793.
- This statement by George Washington in his November 1792 annual report to Congress settles the matter:
“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.”
There you have it. The President of the United States declared that “the want of small coins in circulation” called for the production and distribution of these coins. >>
What he says.....
TD
The 1792 half disme had traditionally been viewed as a pattern and it had been listed in the Redbook (and still is) in the "Proposed Coinage" pattern section.
We didn't think that was the case. About 15 years ago or so, we had a team of outside experts, everyone from Dave Bowers to John Love, and I'd send out questionaires about various numismatic structure issues. We asked questions like, "The $4 Stellas are obviously patterns, but should they be included in a type set of proof gold anyway?" (Silver dollar expert Wayne Miller had a great reply to that question, "Stellas should be part of the proof gold type set because if they are not included they would get lonely without their little brothers and sisters.")
All of our experts thought the 1792 half disme was a regular issue U.S. coin...the first regular issue U.S. coin. So we called it that and included it as such in the PCGS Set Registry and Pop Report, etc. The marketplace agreed and by the way, prices soared.
Dave Bowers told me the Martha Washington story is not based in fact. He's probably right (isn't he always) but I sometimes can't help myself and tell people to imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson sitting around the dinner table and Martha saying, "Well George, if it's really that important to you and Tom."
hrh
Now, what needs to be done to get the Redbook to classify the 1792 half disme as a regular issue coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>But what about the 1792 Dismes, which were also mentioned? Why were so few of them produced (as patterns?)? They are mentioned, right along side the Half Dismes in the July 9, 1792 letters from both Rittenhouse and Washington. >>
There are a couple of reasons.
First, Washington and company probably only had a limited amount of silver with which to work. The half disme allowed them to spread their limited amount of silver as far as possible. They also probably had only one set of dies, half dismes, that were available.
Second, the dismes were made at the first U.S. mint site. Under the Coinage Act of 1792, the chief coiner and the chief assayer had to each had to post bonds of $10,000 each before they could handle gold or silver. Neither of those officials could do that, and would not be able to do it until the bonds were lowered and Thomas Jefferson secured loans for them to post the reduced amounts. This is the reason that silver dollars were not issued until October of 1794. Therefore no significant coinage of silver dismes could be made at the mint legally.
I have understood that all of the 1792 half dismes were coined in one day at John Harper’s workshop under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, as secretary of state, was responsible for mint operations and as a senior officer could preside over the coinage without the bonds.
<< <i>
The lack of the required bonds to coin is the strongest argument against the Half Dismes being regular issue coins. However, I think it is safe to say that they are a regular issue coin struck with good intent but without legal authorization.
The same could be said about the 1856 Flying Eagle cents, which were (at least mostly, if not all) struck before the passage of the Coinage Act of 1857. They have come to be accepted as regular issue coins.
TD
<< <i>I bought a nice 1792 half disme in a PCGS holder in the mid 1990's.Just after that the price went into orbit.
That was about the same time that I bought my piece.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>
<< <i>I bought a nice 1792 half disme in a PCGS holder in the mid 1990's.Just after that the price went into orbit.
That was about the same time that I bought my piece. >>
I wish I bought mine then (along with a 1799 Eagle).
.........................................
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>We want to say the mint started off with $75 face value of coin production? >>
It's not a matter of what "we want to say". It's one of what actually occurred.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I bought a nice 1792 half disme in a PCGS holder in the mid 1990's.Just after that the price went into orbit.
That was about the same time that I bought my piece. >>
I wish I bought mine then (along with a 1799 Eagle). >>
Well.........
I had a few half disme's . The lowest grade I had was a holed coin with an ANACS Certificate, from Don Kagin and was just a little too high priced to consider. Several strong VF coins in the 12K-15K range but I thought I remember an XF coin at 18K.
One of my favorite favorite coins. Are they still a good value at todays' levels?
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>We want to say the mint started off with $75 face value of coin production? >>
You gotta start somewhere. The total production of Chain cents could have been bought for $361.03 face, and the entire production for 1793 for $1,281.79.
TD
'dude
<< <i>My vote would be "not". Believe the intention was for the coin to circulate due to the lack of circulating coinage and our nation's leaders (primarily GW) desire to have an "American made" product out on the street.
'dude >>
Before you continue to hold that opinion you should drop back to the "forbidden" sections of the Red Book that are before the 1793 half cent. There you will find many types of copper coins and tokens, in addition to the many foreign coins, not listed in the Red Book, that circulated in America before the United States was united under the Constitution. There were legal state coppers, privately issued tokens like the Nova Constellatio coppers and worst of all, light weight counterfeit pieces issued by places like Machin’s Mill.
Machin’s Mill was the most famous counterfeiter of the period, but there were others whose products were of an even lower quality. If you could make something out of copper that was round, brown and looked like someone else had used it (Many of the these pieces were “struck in VF condition.”) chances were you could have gotten someone to take it as money. After a while this plethora light weight junk copper was destroying the value of money in circulation to the economic detriment of the average citizen. The Fugio Cent and the 1792 half disme were early attempts by the central government to alleviate the problem.
Today modern Americans don’t know how lucky we are to have a more or less stable monetary system. Aside from the occasional counterfeit we can accept and spend our money without a second thought because it has a stable value. That stability only started to come about after the Civil War. People can rant about the Federal Reserve System and threats we face today from inflation, but back in the 19th century and before, it was much worse.
<< <i>Here are a few other pieces of contemporary correspondence (found in the Philadelphia Mint archives by researcher Karl Moulton) that that give some indications of what the intentions were of President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and then Mint Director David Rittenhouse:
On July 9, 1792, Rittenhouse wrote to George Washington:
"...as small money is very much wanted we think proper, in the mean time, if your Excellency approves of it, to Coin some Copper Cents & Half Cents, and likewise small Silver, at least Dimes and Half Dimes. I have purchased on account of the United States, a House & Lot which I hope will be found convenient for the Mint but, considerable alterations must be made...I have likewise engaged Mr. Voigt to act as Coiner, and ... several workmen... I shall be happy in receiving your Excellency's approbation of these preparatory steps, together with such further directions as you may think proper to give."
President Washington responded with his approvals that same day:
"Having had under consideration the letter of the Director of the Mint of this day's date, I hereby declare my approbation of the purchase he has made of the house and lot for the Mint; of the employment of Mr. Voight as Coiner...and proceeding to coin the Cents and half Cents of Copper, and Dismes and half Dismes of Silver."
After meeting with Washington in person on July 9, 1792, Jefferson re-iterated to Rittenhouse the approbation from Washington:
"The President having referred to me your letter of this day, I have it in charge from him to express to you his satisfaction at your undertaking the office of the Director of the Mint...He approves of the purchases you have made of the house and lot for the mint, of the employment of Mr. Voigt as coiner...and proceeding to coin the cents & half cents of copper & dismes and half dismes of silver."
On July 11, 1792, just two days later, Thomas Jefferson noted in his personal account book
, "Delivd 75 D at the Mint to be coined"
Finally, on July 13, 1792, just two days after that, Jefferson noted in his account book
"Recd. From the Mint 1500 half dismes from the new coinage."
So....George Washington gave his explicit written approval to the Director of the Mint to go ahead and produce half dismes. Thomas Jefferson echoed that approval and delivered the necessary silver to the "Mint" to be "coined," and then later on Jefferson wrote that he had received 1500 half dismes of the "new coinage." It sure sounds to me like the parties involved had intended them to be actual "coins."
-- Cardinal
Cardinal-Rittenhouse MS68 half disme to be displayed in Long Beach, February 3rd & 4th >>
So Jefferson "delivered" the 75 Spanish dollars that were then converted into about 1500 half dimes.
On whose behalf was he delivering them, or, in other words, who was he delivering them from to the new Mint? Washington, or the accounts of the USA?
TD
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 firmly believe these coins served a vital function, it was necessary for the government to guage the people's reaction before begining more sizable endeavors regarding coinage. I don't think it was minted just as a souvenir as some have said, especially considering the amount of wear the majority received. So really, it isn't a pattern, and it isn't truly a business strike. I DO feel that it deserves a place among mainstream american coinage, it served it's function well, because as we see, america continued with a illustrious (forgive the pun) carrer of fedral coinage because of the results of this test.
Had the introduction of the Half Disme failed, I believe many years would have transpired before a fedral coinage would have been implemented...shoot!...They may have decided that each state have it's own coinage. That's really how most amercans viewed the United States at the time, as individual in entity but collective for defense. In the imortal words of Shelby Foote, "Before the <Civil> war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'.
Perhaps the half-disme was the first step to becoming a "WE." It was one of the first steps toward state unification, at least in the fiscal realm, and perhaps started a gradual shift in mental perception of the people as well. It's an important coin in the annals of american history, end of story.
TD
<< <i>I think that the often repeated figure of about 300 1792 Half Dismes surviving is too high. The 1794 Silver Dollar has about 150 pieces known. The 1792 Half Disme has less graded by the services ,and appears less often at auction.I would estimate that a better number would be about 125 survivors.In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1792 Half Disme but do not own ( I wish that I did ) a 1794 Silver Dollar. >>
In my time as a collector (over 35 years with a willingness to pay "serious money") I've seen a decent number of 1792 half dismes that could not be graded, and it was obvious that they could not be graded because of a hole, bent or some other problem. Perhaps now that the major services will put these coins into net graded or "genuine" holders we will see more certified, but I think that the 1792 half disme, if you ignore the grade, is more common than the 1794 silver dollar.
And yes, I've a got a dog in the hunt. I own a 1792 half disme in VF, but I don't own a 1794 silver dollar, and probably never will own one.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that the often repeated figure of about 300 1792 Half Dismes surviving is too high. The 1794 Silver Dollar has about 150 pieces known. The 1792 Half Disme has less graded by the services ,and appears less often at auction.I would estimate that a better number would be about 125 survivors.In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1792 Half Disme but do not own ( I wish that I did ) a 1794 Silver Dollar. >>
In my time as a collector (over 35 years with a willingness to pay "serious money") I've seen a decent number of 1792 half dismes that could not be graded, and it was obvious that they could not be graded because of a hole, bent or some other problem. Perhaps now that the major services will put these coins into net graded or "genuine" holders we will see more certified, but I think that the 1792 half disme, if you ignore the grade, is more common than the 1794 silver dollar.
>>
TD
pg 99-100:
"These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116:
"Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dismes as patterns in 1858.
<< <i>James Ross Snowden was Director of the US Mint from 1853 to 1861 and Treasurer of the US Mint from 1847 to 1850. He was also a numismatic researcher and author, having published several books. I am fortunate to own a couple, here are excerpts from his 1858 book "The Mint Manual Of Coins Of All Nations," in which Snowden gives his perspective on the 1792 Half Dimes:
pg 99-100:
"These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116:
"Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dimes as patterns in 1858. >>
Snowden certainly was a key figure in the history of the Mint, and is due a great amount of respect. That being said, he did not become involved with the Mint until 55 years after the half dismes were produced, so his statements cannot be deemed to be based on first-person, contemporaneous knowledge. Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and David Rittenhouse were actually (and personally) involved at the time they were struck. David Rittenhouse requested -- in writing -- permission to begin producing coins for circulation in accordance with the Mint Act of 1792. George Washington approved Rittenhouse's request -- in writing. Thomas Jefferson noted after the production of the half dismes that he had received "coins" -- again, in writing. Finally, Washington stated publicly that there had been a beginning in the coinage of the U.S. to address what was then needed for circulation. I personally find more validity in the contemporaneous written statements of those present at the time and personally involved in the process, than in the written opinions of someone coming along a half a century later.
<< <i>I have been a serious collector for over 50 years and have attended hundreds of coin shows including every ANA summer convention since 1970. I looked at a lot of 1792 Half Dismes for over 5 years before I purchased the one that I have. I have continued to seek out these coins and 1794 Silver Dollars at each show that I attend.Yes, there are a lot of Half Dismes that will not slab but I have seen a fair number of 1794 Dollars that have problems and will not slab.For about a decade I kept a log of each 1792 Half Disme and 1794 Dollar that appeared at auction.I checked hundreds of auction catalogs going back to the 1940's .The 1792 Half Disme appeared less often at auction than the 1794 Dollar.Unfortunately I lost my log during our move a few years ago and have not had the time to recreate the list. >>
I have done an extensive auction survey of 1792 half dismes and 1794 dollars, as well. The 1794 dollar became a well-known rarity very early on, and so due to its fame, it was more likely to trade hands publicly via auction than the half dismes. In fact, even into the 1990's half dismes were not in as much demand and traded more often privately. I remember being offered a PCGS AU58 half disme privately around 1999/2000 at a price around $50K, and I passed on it. (That same coin is now in a PCGS MS63 holder and valued at around $500K.
Oh, and just for full disclosure, I happen to have a nice specimen of each.
<< <i>
<< <i>James Ross Snowden was Director of the US Mint from 1853 to 1861 and Treasurer of the US Mint from 1847 to 1850. He was also a numismatic researcher and author, having published several books. I am fortunate to own a couple, here are excerpts from his 1858 book "The Mint Manual Of Coins Of All Nations," in which Snowden gives his perspective on the 1792 Half Dimes:
pg 99-100:
"These presses were put into operation in the beginning of October, and were used for striking the half dimes, of which Washington makes mention in his Annual Address to Congress, on the 6th of November, 1792, as follows: 'There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.' Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noticed under the head of 'pattern pieces,' at the close of this article. The first 'regular' return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March, 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight cents."
pg 116:
"Since the establishment of the United States Mint many coins have made their appearance therefrom, which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of an experimental character, and not intended for general circulation. Among them we include the 'Washington Half Dime,' which we have before mentioned. We consider, however, that the piece in question was intended 'for general circulation' from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted.) But as it partakes of the experimental character, we exclude it from the regular series.
1792. Half Dime. Obv. A female head, emblematic of Liberty, facing to the left. This popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington, who is said to have sat to the artist while he was designing it...The piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally supervising many of its affairs."
As Director of the US Mint, Snowden designated the 1792 Half Dimes as patterns in 1858. >>
Snowden certainly was a key figure in the history of the Mint, and is due a great amount of respect. That being said, he did not become involved with the Mint until 55 years after the half dismes were produced, so his statements cannot be deemed to be based on first-person, contemporaneous knowledge. Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and David Rittenhouse were actually (and personally) involved at the time they were struck. David Rittenhouse requested -- in writing -- permission to begin producing coins for circulation in accordance with the Mint Act of 1792. George Washington approved Rittenhouse's request -- in writing. Thomas Jefferson noted after the production of the half dismes that he had received "coins" -- again, in writing. Finally, Washington stated publicly that there had been a beginning in the coinage of the U.S. to address what was then needed for circulation. I personally find more validity in the contemporaneous written statements of those present at the time and personally involved in the process, than in the written opinions of someone coming along a half a century later. >>
Excellent points.
TD
<< <i>Discuss. >>
Name a U.S. coin with a discus on it.