Why did the mint change the size and fineness of bust quarters?

CoinBuyer12

In 1831, the smaller quarter was minted. Same weight, but smaller and thicker. It's the same size we have today.

I have looked in coinfacts, in my redbook, and enlisted the help of "google", but I'm not finding out...

Why did the mint change the size of the quarter?

Also, I see around 1837 the mint changed the fineness of silver from .8924 to .90. Was there any reason for this change? I can't see a change of only .0076 having much effect.

CoinBuyer12

Bump.

1tommy

BillJones

<< <i>Why did the size change? >>



It was a reflection of a change in technology. In 1831 the mint started to use the closed collar to strike quarters. As is done with today's reeded edge coins, the planchet was placed in a closed collar and the obverse, reverse and reeded edge were impressed on the coin with one blow from the dies. In earlier times the reeded was pressed into the planchets by a separate operation.



<< <i>Why was the alloy changed from .8924 and .1076 copper to .900 silver and .100 copper? >>



This was a reflection of a need to make the mixing of the metals more convenient for mint employees. It's not hard to image that would be more difficult to get it right for .8924 silver than it would be .900 silver. In fact in 1794 chief coiner, Albion Cox, brought this issue up to mint director, David Rittenhouse. Cox argued that the .900 standard was a more workable composition and Rittenhouse agreed to the change despite the fact that it was illegal. Therefore the earliest U.S. coins were to that standard without a compensating reduction in weight. The net result was that those who deposited silver at the mint to be made into coins got back 1% less in face value than they were entitled to receive. In other words they got back $99 face instead of $100 face. This was not fully disclosed until the fall of 1795.

When one depositor learned of this, all hell broke loose. Oddly enough the mint's response to this complaint was a bit bizarre. Their response was, "Well you did get back all of your silver, didn't you?" In 1837 Congress finally acknowledged that the .900 was easier to apply and make the legal adjustment.

CoinBuyer12

<< <i>

<< <i>Why did the size change? >>



It was a reflection of a change in technology. In 1831 the mint started to use the closed collar to strike quarters. As is done with today's reeded edge coins, the planchet was placed in a closed collar and the obverse, reverse and reeded edge were impressed on the coin with one blow from the dies. In earlier times the reeded was pressed into the planchets by a separate operation.



<< <i>Why was the alloy changed from .8924 and .1076 copper to .900 silver and .100 copper? >>



This was a reflection of a need to make the mixing of the metals more convenient for mint employees. It's not hard to image that would be more difficult to get it right for .8924 silver than it would be .900 silver. In fact in 1794 chief coiner, Albion Cox, brought this issue up to mint director, David Rittenhouse. Cox argued that the .900 standard was a more workable composition and Rittenhouse agreed to the change despite the fact that it was illegal. Therefore the earliest U.S. coins were to that standard without a compensating reduction in weight. The net result was that those who deposited silver at the mint to be made into coins got back 1% less in face value than they were entitled to receive. In other words they got back $99 face instead of $100 face. This was not fully disclosed until the fall of 1795.

When one depositor learned of this, all hell broke loose. Oddly enough the mint's response to this complaint was a bit bizarre. Their response was, "Well you did get back all of your silver, didn't you?" In 1837 Congress finally acknowledged that the .900 was easier to apply and make the legal adjustment. >>



Thanks!