Unfortunately it can't be proven 100% either way. That said, I think the evidence supports that this example is the earliest known. It seems to make logical sense that the first one, or couple, would be made with special planchets. That doesn't prove anything, but it is a piece of circumstancial evidence which is corroborated by the die state analysis.
I'm also intrigued by Mr. Eureka's point. Who know's what is out there. Is it possible that a better example has been hidden away?
I'd feel comfortable saying, based on the known evidence, that it is the earliest known 1794 dollar and more likely than not the first struck.
<< <i>Unfortunately it can't be proven 100% either way. That said, I think the evidence supports that this example is the earliest known. It seems to make logical sense that the first one, or couple, would be made with special planchets. .....
I'd feel comfortable saying, based on the known evidence, that it is the earliest known 1794 dollar and more likely than not the first struck. >>
As a point for consideration relating to specimens I refer back to a thread on the two recent monster 1/2 dismes.
I am convinced by Cardinal's analysis that the MS68 is an earlier die state than the SP67. Yet the SP67 shows strike characteristics that are not present on the MS68. I characterized the strike on the SP67 as two levels better than on the MS68, which itself is struck a ton for the issue. And there's obviously a difference in planchet preparation. So the SP67 is very special (call it highly atypical if you like) in both regards. Not something produced as just another round metal object from the middle of a production run.
OK, there's a little apples and oranges factor in the differences between that basement and the practices at the official mint. Mentioned just to preempt an argument on this basis.
I suggest that there is a more than minute possibility (did I qualify adequately?) that the Mint may have had some similar practices.
Anything else I might have to say on the subject is either highly derivative of previous posts or a product of my bloviation. AKA, for those of you who didn't go to an excellent high school, as blah, blah, blah.
edited to add: Since the die state of the Neil-Carter-???-Lustig-???-Foxfire-Contursi-Cardinal-TDN piece is clearly Die State 1, it is impossible to conclude otherwise than this is one of the first few struck.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>I was initially one of the greatest critics of Contursi's assertion that this was the first struck 1794 dollar. But Martin's research showed it was definitively the earliest known surviving example. And it's obvious that the Mint took great care in its production - the planchet was definitely polished - how long did that take? If one takes the very logical stance that the first struck coin would be saved and be special, then this is the coin. Obviously, if one chooses to believe that the first struck coin was not saved and that sometime after the first coin was struck the Mint took this specially prepared planchet and created the Carter coin and then struck all the other known examples, then that is their perogative. However, it seems to me that latter is more of a stretch than the former. >>
This is my opinion also, that this is the earliest known surviving example, and was specially prepared, more so than any of the other survivors. The silver plug and adjustment marks may have been intentionally used (or not specifically avoided) to demonstrate them on this example. Such coins may be variously termed specimen, essay, proof, etc.
There will never be any conclusive proof that this was the VERY first struck, because it is possible that one or more silver dollars was minted between the copper specimen and this coin, and then was circulated, lost, melted, etc.. but until another specimen shows up that can plausibly make the claim to have been minted before this one (by comparison with this coin, the copper one, and others) this one has the claim to earliest known survivor.
the shorthand "first silver dollar struck" might cause controversy because the simple claim is unprovable by logic or documentation, but who can dispute earliest known surviving example?
I am a doubter that it is the very first one stuck, i have not read enough from uninterested parties to go with the first struck theory. It is clearly a special coin. You would have thought they could have found a better planchet to strike it own. A lot of buinesses frame their first dollar they make, i would have thought the mint would have done something similiar. At different times the mint has struck coins such as the Columbian expo half dollar where they know what coins were struck first and i am sure others.
I am also a little troubled on breaking the 10 million barrier but... it is jut my opinion
One thing for sure is they way this coin auctioned and the debate about 1st stuck can only add to more limelight which is good for the hobby and will not be forgotten anytime soon.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Not to take this thread off on a tangent but just curious on how you arrived at this conclusion?
Well, I guess I'm making the supposition that if they were going to make a specimen in the first few coins that it would be the first coin. Not sure why you'd make a specimen out of the 5th coin or the 10th coin and not save the very first coin. Of course, if the Mint didn't think the very first United States silver dollar was special at the time, then obviously my supposition is wrong. It also seems odd to me that the Mint would save the only silver plugged planchet for later in the production run. Wouldn't a special planchet go first?
Occam's razor
Yes - thank you! >>
Agreed. This is "the logic" I was referring to in my prior post about the 1850 20 dollar gold coin that I own which has been suggested as possibly the first minted U.S. 20 dollar gold piece apart from the 1849 specimens in the Smithsonian. (Photo and thread discussion of the 1850 coin available by entering words "Coinfacts 1850" in the search box.)
<< <i>Makes me wonder if by the same logic my 1850 20 dollar specimen/"proof" might be the first U.S. 20 dollar gold piece that was struck following the 1849 proofs in the Smithsonian. >>
Here is a photo of this arguably other first "first [gold $20] dollar struck."
Beyond the Carter 1794 dollar, what about other prooflike examples? In 1887 dealer Ebenezer Locke Mason wrote “It is said that but a few of the 1794 dollars were struck, and the earliest from the dies equaled Proof pieces in their glistening splendor. The British Museum contains the best known specimen.” This particular coin was donated to the British Museum in 1818 and has remained there ever since. Its earliest recorded owner was Captain Hawkins Whitshed, who gave it as a gift to Sarah Sophia Banks in 1796. The coin remained with Sarah Banks until her death in 1818, and then it was donated to the Museum. Based on Mason's description from long ago, the coin displayed "glistening" surfaces equal to "Proof pieces," yet, according to Dannreuther's recent examination of the coin, it did not have sharply squared prooflike edges. So, in all likelihood this would have been a very early strike from fresh dies, where the dies themselves would have created the prooflike surfaces.
FWIW, I've inspected the British Museum coin in hand. The surfaces and edge are indeed not PL at all, but the edge is solidly squared, just like the Carter coin.
Edited to add that if you read Mason's comments a little more carefully, you'll see that he wasn't necessarily saying that the BM coin is PL.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A lot of informed opinions on both sides of this issue so why not throw my rather uninformed one into the ring (which I reserve the right to change because I plan to read Cardinal's book).
It seems to me that the very first dollar struck would have been recognized as significant and worth setting aside and preserving (as TDN points out). The coin would have been passed down in turn to others who at some point were not told about this important fact that it was first-struck but would have recognized it as a special coin and worth preserving. I can't imagine the first dollar struck was simply put into circulation in the 1790s-- it seems unlikely. It also seems improbable that someone later in time decided to spend it -- after all, you don't buy an ice cream cone (to cite an example of another coin allegedly making its way into circulation) with a silver dollar dated 1794.
So although admittedly quixotic (I am after all a coin collector), my belief is that it is likely that the first dollar struck still exists, somewhere. And the Cardinal/Legend coin seems to be the leading candidate, but there is always the small chance that a better candidate could appear at some point in time.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
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>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense.
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>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
Here's 1 of 51 of George Washington's Diaries available online this one is from September 30 - October 20, 1794 which ends just 5 days after the dollars were struck.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
Here's 1 of 51 of George Washington's Diaries available online this one is from September 30 - October 20, 1794 which ends just 5 days after the dollars were struck. >>
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Quite right! During his term as Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson held oversight authority with the operations of the Mint. So, for example, he personally delivered the silver for the minting of the 1792 half dismes, and he later collected the finished coins.
<< <i><< It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Is this true? Or did the mint make a profit on the coinage and thus hold back a few of the coins?
Edited to say that based on what I can find online, initially the coinage was free of charge. >>
Mint Director David Rittenhouse provided the silver that was used for the production of the 1794 dollars. In accordance with the Mint Act of April 1792, the Mint was required to return full value of the bullion in the form of the struck coins. All of the 1758 coins recorded as having been struck were paid out to Rittenhouse. Leonard D. Augsburger (co-author of The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint located in the Philadelphia archives the original receipt signed by David Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794 to acknowledge his receipt and acceptance of the coins that day.
As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence!
<< <i>Cardinal, in regards to your former 1792 H10c MS68 NGC do you have any new info as to who provided the silver for that run? thanks >>
Correspondence at the time shows that George Washington personally authorized the silver to be used, but I have not seen any documentation of the physical source of the silver.
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
GW using a spork. Heavens no.
Of course, it might help prevent splintering of wooden teeth.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
EVP >>
I agree ... definitive evidence (verified by more than one "expert") that proves the case one way or the other would be wonderful.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Edmund Randolph was Secretary of State in October 1794, when the dollars were struck. The Mint did not become formally attached to the Treasury until 1825.
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
EVP >>
I agree ... definitive evidence (verified by more than one "expert") that proves the case one way or the other would be wonderful. >>
To be clear, it's not that I'd ever doubt Cardinal...
Rather, in academia, transparency and peer review is paramount to cover the cases where even the best of researchers can be human...
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
GW using a spork. Heavens no.
Of course, it might help prevent splintering of wooden teeth. >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is not controverted, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch.
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
You will want to track down this article:
"George Washington and America's 'Small Beginning' in Coinage: The Fabled 1792 Half Dismes," Joel J. Orosz and Carl R. Herkowitz, American Journal of Numismatics 15 (2003), published 2004, pp. 111-156.
In 2003, numismatic scholars and authors Joel J. Orosz and Carl R. Herkowitz wrote an in depth and intriguing monograph for the American Numismatic Society Journal of Numismatics entitled “George Washington and America’s ‘Small Beginning’ in Coinage: the Fabled 1792 Half Dismes”. This represents perhaps the most comprehensive research to date into the rumors, fables, and innuendo surrounding the 1792 half dismes, and essentially unravels the folklore regarding their origin and design.
In short, the authors debunk the fiction that the half dismes were struck from silver from George and Martha Washington’s silver tea service, but were instead struck from silver bullion (most likely in the form of $100 in silver coin) deposited by George Washington. The authors also unravel the fabrication that the model who sat for the portrait was Martha Washington. It seems that there was no model used, and the portrait is simply an allegorical representation of Miss Liberty by either Jacob Perkins or Robert Birch, as correctly stated earlier by several others (the actual artist and engraver of the dies is not presently known with certainty). Many of the rumors that surround the 1792 half disme are attributed by the authors to Mint Director James Ross Snowden, and were further perpetuated by a Mr. Norton, publisher of “Norton’s Literary Letter”.
<< <i>The last paragraph sounds great but where an dhow did the authors debunk the two theories? I would love to see the original sources that they used, that is if it exists and is not their opinions. >>
I have read the article, and I have it somewhere. I remember it being logical and convincing. And it being based on facts and not just speculation. And articles don't usually get into the American Journal of Numismatics unless they have merit.
And last, it was a thoroughly enjoyable read. Even though I will probably never own a 1792 Half Disme, I find the story fascinating.
MAYBE SOMEDAY THE "FIRST STRUCK DOLLAR" FROM 1794 CAN BE PAIRED WITH THE "FIRST STRUCK TWENTY DOLLAR" FROM 1850!
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, .....? >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is now evident, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch of a reported 1500 coins (of which only 10% are estimated to have survived to our day). >>
That is quite interesting, would you know the date of the inventoried items that was done before and after 1792 and would you have copies of both for perusing. I too have a 1792 and would find this of great importance. Thanks! >>
I have spent several hours researching through my numismatic historical materials in an attempt to locate the source of the Mt. Vernon inventory records that I initially referenced. Interestingly although I did not locate what i was looking for, i did come across an article referencing research done by Joel Orosz and Carl Herkowitz - the same persons you referenced in a subsequent post in a 2003 article. The article I located was dated June 13, 2005 in Coin World and is authored by Eric von Klinger. The article is titled, "Document details half disme" with the subtitle, "Confirms that G. Washington was source of silver." Another resource i reviewed is David Lange's book, "History of the United States Mint and its Coinage." In the chapter titled, "The First Federal Coins" he takes a more open view to the silver deposited by George Washington as possibly being his silverware: "An old legend has it that President and Mrs. Washington donated some of their silverware to be melted as a supply of bullion for these first coins. Though this wonderful tale cannot be confirmed, it is more believable than it may seem. The president took a very personal interest in the affairs of the Mint.... in fact he frequently stopped by the mint on his daily walk to work! In his annual address to the nation in November [of 1792], Washington, alluding to the sliver half dismes, mentioned that a 'small beginning' had been made in the matter of coinage."
In any event, Realone, I think you will agree that the "mystery" that accompanies our half dismes certainly adds to their attraction. Personally, I love coins that have a story as a part of their provenance.
Your reference to firstmint's contributions here on this forum brought to mind a reply he made with regard to another coin of mine that has a unique story as part of its provenance as I have alluded to in prior posts on this thread - my 1850 $20 Gold Piece which is attributed to Dr. C.W. Green and had been holdered with a proof grade. Firstmint added the additional information about my coin's history posting, "That is certainly a distinctive coin. However, in 1949, when Max Mehl catalogued it, he disagreed with the Proof designation. .....IMO, the coin is a first strike from the regular production dies, that happened to get saved and ended up in numismatic channels. That would be the real story behind this nice coin. Edited to add the rest of the story - After doing some quick research and looking for an answer to the reason for such a coin being saved, I uncovered the original appearance for this particular coin. It came from the James B. Longacre estate (the coin's designer). and was sold in the January 21, 1870 auction sale conducted by M(oses) Thomas & Sons in Philidelphia. It was lot #178."
Subsequent to firstmint's posting informing me about the coin being a "first strike" I went back to Breen's writings and located the following reference in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, "(1) J.B. Longacre estate, 1870:178, at a then astonishing $27, 'from the first dies used for the double eagle.' (2) Dr. Green:719 at a then extraordinary $315) ...."
Here is a photo I took of my coin - the 1850 $20 gold piece. Maybe someday the "the first dollar struck" back in 1794, can be paired with mine, the "first $20 struck" in 1850.
<< <i>MAYBE SOMEDAY THE "FIRST STRUCK DOLLAR" FROM 1794 CAN BE PAIRED WITH THE "FIRST STRUCK TWENTY DOLLAR" FROM 1850!
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, .....? >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is now evident, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch of a reported 1500 coins (of which only 10% are estimated to have survived to our day). >>
That is quite interesting, would you know the date of the inventoried items that was done before and after 1792 and would you have copies of both for perusing. I too have a 1792 and would find this of great importance. Thanks! >>
I have spent several hours researching through my numismatic historical materials in an attempt to locate the source of the Mt. Vernon inventory records that I initially referenced. Interestingly although I did not locate what i was looking for, i did come across an article referencing research done by Joel Orosz and Carl Herkowitz - the same persons you referenced in a subsequent post in a 2003 article. The article I located was dated June 13, 2005 in Coin World and is authored by Eric von Klinger. The article is titled, "Document details half disme" with the subtitle, "Confirms that G. Washington was source of silver." Another resource i reviewed is David Lange's book, "History of the United States Mint and its Coinage." In the chapter titled, "The First Federal Coins" he takes a more open view to the silver deposited by George Washington as possibly being his silverware: "An old legend has it that President and Mrs. Washington donated some of their silverware to be melted as a supply of bullion for these first coins. Though this wonderful tale cannot be confirmed, it is more believable than it may seem. The president took a very personal interest in the affairs of the Mint.... in fact he frequently stopped by the mint on his daily walk to work! In his annual address to the nation in November [of 1792], Washington, alluding to the sliver half dismes, mentioned that a 'small beginning' had been made in the matter of coinage."
In any event, Realone, I think you will agree that the "mystery" that accompanies our half dismes certainly adds to their attraction. Personally, I love coins that have a story as a part of their provenance.
Your reference to firstmint's contributions here on this forum brought to mind a reply he made with regard to another coin of mine that has a unique story as part of its provenance as I have alluded to in prior posts on this thread - my 1850 $20 Gold Piece which is attributed to Dr. C.W. Green and had been holdered with a proof grade. Firstmint added the additional information about my coin's history posting, "That is certainly a distinctive coin. However, in 1949, when Max Mehl catalogued it, he disagreed with the Proof designation. .....IMO, the coin is a first strike from the regular production dies, that happened to get saved and ended up in numismatic channels. That would be the real story behind this nice coin. Edited to add the rest of the story - After doing some quick research and looking for an answer to the reason for such a coin being saved, I uncovered the original appearance for this particular coin. It came from the James B. Longacre estate (the coin's designer). and was sold in the January 21, 1870 auction sale conducted by M(oses) Thomas & Sons in Philidelphia. It was lot #178."
Subsequent to firstmint's posting informing me about the coin being a "first strike" I went back to Breen's writings and located the following reference in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, "(1) J.B. Longacre estate, 1870:178, at a then astonishing $27, 'from the first dies used for the double eagle.' (2) Dr. Green:719 at a then extraordinary $315) ...."
Here is a photo I took of my coin - the 1850 $20 gold piece. Maybe someday the "the first dollar struck" back in 1794, can be paired with mine, the "first $20 struck" in 1850.
<< <i>Good lord man - can't you start your own thread??? >>
Indeed!
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.
It appeared someone was suggesting that the silver for the 1794 dollar was rumored to have been sourced from George Washington's silverware instead of for the half disme so was responding to same. Agree that apart from 1792 being the first year of issue of any U.S. silver coin (the half disme) and 1794 being the first year of issue of the silver dollar the two topics do deserve separate threads
<< <i>It appeared someone was suggesting that the silver for the 1794 dollar was rumored to have been sourced from George Washington's silverware instead of for the half disme so was responding to same. Agree that apart from 1792 being the first year of issue of any U.S. silver coin (the half disme) and 1794 being the first year of issue of the silver dollar the two topics do deserve separate threads >>
Also, it seemed that you're here to market/lobby the special status of your double eagle. Start a new thread for that, please...
<< <i>It appeared someone was suggesting that the silver for the 1794 dollar was rumored to have been sourced from George Washington's silverware instead of for the half disme so was responding to same. Agree that apart from 1792 being the first year of issue of any U.S. silver coin (the half disme) and 1794 being the first year of issue of the silver dollar the two topics do deserve separate threads >>
Also, it seemed that you're here to market/lobby the special status of your double eagle. Start a new thread for that, please... >>
Yes, it seems out of context to market your 1850 double eagle in 5 separate posts in a thread about the 1794 Dollar. Also, it would seem that SEGS considers your coin to be a "problem" coin, as noted by the asterisk following the description "enhanced surfaces." Per the SEGS Website:
"SEGS will encapsulate coins that have certain "problem" conditions and meet certain criteria as set forth by SEGS. These coins will be accompanied by our normal label and will be identifiable by a small star symbol located on the extreme mid right of the SEGS label accompanied by written descriptive of the coin's particular problem (s)."
I would think it would be very difficult to establish a coin as being a "presentation piece" when the coin's surfaces had been doctored, but please let that be a topic for your own thread on the subject.
One may find it interesting to read through the linked thread and firstmint's instructive post therein on the subject of first strikes which was linked in my prior post. There are very few older coins that can historically be suggested as having been the first one struck from the original dies. Since the subject of this thread has to do with whether the 1794 Dollar was the first dollar struck or not and the reasons why it may or may not in fact be the first I'm sure some would find firstmint's conclusions related to my 1850 Twenty Dollar to have relevance to the question at hand. Some of the same issues are shared beginning with the fact that both the 1784 and the 1850 are coins issued in the first year of their mintage.
Separately, with regard to the notation on the holder as to "enhanced surfaces," the Superior Galleeries auction description for this subject 1850 twenty dollar as quoted by Coin Facts attributes the "enhanced surfaces" to the dies. To quote directly, "The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking..." Firstmint's conclusions from his research of the historical auction records for the subject coin add the intriguing prospect that like the Cardinal 1794 Dollar, the 1850 Twenty Dollar may also be a first strike.
<< <i>It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Getting back to a serious discussion of the 1794 dollar in question,
if the entire deposit was returned to the depositor in coin form, how is it that 1795 dollars are known struck over reject 1794 dollars?
Was some other silver quietly added to the batch to keep the depositor whole, with the leftover silver (including reject dollars) put back into the pipeline for 1795 coinage? Imagine how hard it would be to take one unique deposit of silver, properly alloy it, cast it into strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, et cetera and ad infinitum, until the last strip cast produces exactly one planchet.
If, hypothetically, some silver substitution took place for the sake of practicality, could not the coin in question (and perhaps others) been taken out as a presentation piece and replaced with an equal amount of good silver?
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>It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Getting back to a serious discussion of the 1794 dollar in question,
if the entire deposit was returned to the depositor in coin form, how is it that 1795 dollars are known struck over reject 1794 dollars?
Was some other silver quietly added to the batch to keep the depositor whole, with the leftover silver (including reject dollars) put back into the pipeline for 1795 coinage? Imagine how hard it would be to take one unique deposit of silver, properly alloy it, cast it into strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, et cetera and ad infinitum, until the last strip cast produces exactly one planchet.
If, hypothetically, some silver substitution took place for the sake of practicality, could not the coin in question (and perhaps others) been taken out as a presentation piece and replaced with an equal amount of good silver?
TD >>
Thanks for keeping this thread active as well as for having started it as it is certainly an interesting topic. With regard to the deposit and return of silver it certainly adds to the uniqueness of the early dollars. Personally, I think your hypothetical has merit. Even with the two year earlier mintage of the silver half dismes similar questions remain as to whether there was any "slippage."
<< <i>Please do note that I'm trying to be very careful in what I'm claiming because I used to feel the very same way as many here do - and I do recognize there are other possibilites. There are a few facts in the mix - fact is that the coin is the earliest die state known and matches the copper pattern exactly. Fact is that many experts believe special care was taken in its production. Yes, there could have been a few other specimens struck at the same time and something could have happened to them. Yes, there could have been a few circulation strikes struck before this specimen was struck. But the simplest explanation is that the first coin was struck as a specimen and saved and this is the coin. Not the only explanation, but the simplest. What's that principle that states the simplest explanation is often the best one? >>
Parsimony. Yours is the most parsimonious explanation.
Comments
I'm also intrigued by Mr. Eureka's point. Who know's what is out there. Is it possible that a better example has been hidden away?
I'd feel comfortable saying, based on the known evidence, that it is the earliest known 1794 dollar and more likely than not the first struck.
<< <i>Unfortunately it can't be proven 100% either way. That said, I think the evidence supports that this example is the earliest known. It seems to make logical sense that the first one, or couple, would be made with special planchets. .....
I'd feel comfortable saying, based on the known evidence, that it is the earliest known 1794 dollar and more likely than not the first struck. >>
I think this is a very fair way of saying it
I am convinced by Cardinal's analysis that the MS68 is an earlier die state than the SP67. Yet the SP67 shows strike characteristics that are not present on the MS68. I characterized the strike on the SP67 as two levels better than on the MS68, which itself is struck a ton for the issue. And there's obviously a difference in planchet preparation. So the SP67 is very special (call it highly atypical if you like) in both regards. Not something produced as just another round metal object from the middle of a production run.
OK, there's a little apples and oranges factor in the differences between that basement and the practices at the official mint. Mentioned just to preempt an argument on this basis.
I suggest that there is a more than minute possibility (did I qualify adequately?) that the Mint may have had some similar practices.
Anything else I might have to say on the subject is either highly derivative of previous posts or a product of my bloviation. AKA, for those of you who didn't go to an excellent high school, as blah, blah, blah.
edited to add: Since the die state of the Neil-Carter-???-Lustig-???-Foxfire-Contursi-Cardinal-TDN piece is clearly Die State 1, it is impossible to conclude otherwise than this is one of the first few struck.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I was initially one of the greatest critics of Contursi's assertion that this was the first struck 1794 dollar. But Martin's research showed it was definitively the earliest known surviving example. And it's obvious that the Mint took great care in its production - the planchet was definitely polished - how long did that take? If one takes the very logical stance that the first struck coin would be saved and be special, then this is the coin. Obviously, if one chooses to believe that the first struck coin was not saved and that sometime after the first coin was struck the Mint took this specially prepared planchet and created the Carter coin and then struck all the other known examples, then that is their perogative. However, it seems to me that latter is more of a stretch than the former. >>
This is my opinion also, that this is the earliest known surviving example, and was specially prepared, more so than any of the other survivors. The silver plug and adjustment marks may have been intentionally used (or not specifically avoided) to demonstrate them on this example. Such coins may be variously termed specimen, essay, proof, etc.
There will never be any conclusive proof that this was the VERY first struck, because it is possible that one or more silver dollars was minted between the copper specimen and this coin, and then was circulated, lost, melted, etc.. but until another specimen shows up that can plausibly make the claim to have been minted before this one (by comparison with this coin, the copper one, and others) this one has the claim to earliest known survivor.
the shorthand "first silver dollar struck" might cause controversy because the simple claim is unprovable by logic or documentation, but who can dispute earliest known surviving example?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I am also a little troubled on breaking the 10 million barrier but... it is jut my opinion
One thing for sure is they way this coin auctioned and the debate about 1st stuck can only add to more limelight which is good for the hobby and will not be forgotten anytime soon.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Not to take this thread off on a tangent but just curious on how you arrived at this conclusion?
Well, I guess I'm making the supposition that if they were going to make a specimen in the first few coins that it would be the first coin. Not sure why you'd make a specimen out of the 5th coin or the 10th coin and not save the very first coin. Of course, if the Mint didn't think the very first United States silver dollar was special at the time, then obviously my supposition is wrong. It also seems odd to me that the Mint would save the only silver plugged planchet for later in the production run. Wouldn't a special planchet go first?
Occam's razor
Yes - thank you! >>
Agreed. This is "the logic" I was referring to in my prior post about the 1850 20 dollar gold coin that I own which has been suggested as possibly the first minted U.S. 20 dollar gold piece apart from the 1849 specimens in the Smithsonian. (Photo and thread discussion of the 1850 coin available by entering words "Coinfacts 1850" in the search box.)
<< <i>Makes me wonder if by the same logic my 1850 20 dollar specimen/"proof" might be the first U.S. 20 dollar gold piece that was struck following the 1849 proofs in the Smithsonian. >>
Here is a photo of this arguably other first "first [gold $20] dollar struck."
FWIW, I've inspected the British Museum coin in hand. The surfaces and edge are indeed not PL at all, but the edge is solidly squared, just like the Carter coin.
Edited to add that if you read Mason's comments a little more carefully, you'll see that he wasn't necessarily saying that the BM coin is PL.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It seems to me that the very first dollar struck would have been recognized as significant and worth setting aside and preserving (as TDN points out). The coin would have been passed down in turn to others who at some point were not told about this important fact that it was first-struck but would have recognized it as a special coin and worth preserving. I can't imagine the first dollar struck was simply put into circulation in the 1790s-- it seems unlikely. It also seems improbable that someone later in time decided to spend it -- after all, you don't buy an ice cream cone (to cite an example of another coin allegedly making its way into circulation) with a silver dollar dated 1794.
So although admittedly quixotic (I am after all a coin collector), my belief is that it is likely that the first dollar struck still exists, somewhere. And the Cardinal/Legend coin seems to be the leading candidate, but there is always the small chance that a better candidate could appear at some point in time.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Is this true? Or did the mint make a profit on the coinage and thus hold back a few of the coins?
Edited to say that based on what I can find online, initially the coinage was free of charge
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense.
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>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
Here's 1 of 51 of George Washington's Diaries available online this one is from September 30 - October 20, 1794 which ends just 5 days after the dollars were struck.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
Here's 1 of 51 of George Washington's Diaries available online this one is from September 30 - October 20, 1794 which ends just 5 days after the dollars were struck. >>
Wow - that is cool!
<< <i>
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Quite right! During his term as Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson held oversight authority with the operations of the Mint. So, for example, he personally delivered the silver for the minting of the 1792 half dismes, and he later collected the finished coins.
<< <i><< It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Is this true? Or did the mint make a profit on the coinage and thus hold back a few of the coins?
Edited to say that based on what I can find online, initially the coinage was free of charge. >>
Mint Director David Rittenhouse provided the silver that was used for the production of the 1794 dollars. In accordance with the Mint Act of April 1792, the Mint was required to return full value of the bullion in the form of the struck coins. All of the 1758 coins recorded as having been struck were paid out to Rittenhouse. Leonard D. Augsburger (co-author of The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint located in the Philadelphia archives the original receipt signed by David Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794 to acknowledge his receipt and acceptance of the coins that day.
As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence!
<< <i>Cardinal,
in regards to your former 1792 H10c MS68 NGC do you have any new info as to who provided the silver for that run?
thanks >>
Correspondence at the time shows that George Washington personally authorized the silver to be used, but I have not seen any documentation of the physical source of the silver.
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
GW using a spork. Heavens no.
Of course, it might help prevent splintering of wooden teeth.
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
EVP >>
I agree ... definitive evidence (verified by more than one "expert") that proves the case one way or the other would be wonderful.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Edmund Randolph was Secretary of State in October 1794, when the dollars were struck. The Mint did not
become formally attached to the Treasury until 1825.
..................
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
When do you think you will review that evidence? When do you think that evidence will be publicly disclosed? Please, no teasing!
EVP >>
I agree ... definitive evidence (verified by more than one "expert") that proves the case one way or the other would be wonderful. >>
To be clear, it's not that I'd ever doubt Cardinal...
Rather, in academia, transparency and peer review is paramount to cover the cases where even the best of researchers can be human...
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
GW using a spork. Heavens no.
Of course, it might help prevent splintering of wooden teeth. >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is not controverted, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, seems like a ridiculous susposition since why would a wealthy man give up his own personal silverware when soliver could be obtained much more efficiently and he wouldn't have to resort to plastic spoons and knives like everyone else...I mean everyone had and used their silverware during those times, they needed them! >>
You will want to track down this article:
"George Washington and America's 'Small Beginning' in Coinage: The Fabled 1792 Half Dismes,"
Joel J. Orosz and Carl R. Herkowitz,
American Journal of Numismatics 15 (2003), published 2004, pp. 111-156.
In 2003, numismatic scholars and authors Joel J. Orosz and Carl R. Herkowitz wrote an in depth and intriguing monograph for the American Numismatic Society Journal of Numismatics entitled “George Washington and America’s ‘Small Beginning’ in Coinage: the Fabled 1792 Half Dismes”. This represents perhaps the most comprehensive research to date into the rumors, fables, and innuendo surrounding the 1792 half dismes, and essentially unravels the folklore regarding their origin and design.
In short, the authors debunk the fiction that the half dismes were struck from silver from George and Martha Washington’s silver tea service, but were instead struck from silver bullion (most likely in the form of $100 in silver coin) deposited by George Washington. The authors also unravel the fabrication that the model who sat for the portrait was Martha Washington. It seems that there was no model used, and the portrait is simply an allegorical representation of Miss Liberty by either Jacob Perkins or Robert Birch, as correctly stated earlier by several others (the actual artist and engraver of the dies is not presently known with certainty). Many of the rumors that surround the 1792 half disme are attributed by the authors to Mint Director James Ross Snowden, and were further perpetuated by a Mr. Norton, publisher of “Norton’s Literary Letter”.
<< <i>The last paragraph sounds great but where an dhow did the authors debunk the two theories? I would love to see the original sources that they used, that is if it exists and is not their opinions. >>
I have read the article, and I have it somewhere. I remember it being logical and convincing. And it being based on facts and not just speculation. And articles don't usually get into the American Journal of Numismatics unless they have merit.
And last, it was a thoroughly enjoyable read. Even though I will probably never own a 1792 Half Disme, I find the story fascinating.
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, .....? >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is now evident, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch of a reported 1500 coins (of which only 10% are estimated to have survived to our day). >>
That is quite interesting, would you know the date of the inventoried items that was done before and after 1792 and would you have copies of both for perusing. I too have a 1792 and would find this of great importance. Thanks! >>
I have spent several hours researching through my numismatic historical materials in an attempt to locate the source of the Mt. Vernon inventory records that I initially referenced. Interestingly although I did not locate what i was looking for, i did come across an article referencing research done by Joel Orosz and Carl Herkowitz - the same persons you referenced in a subsequent post in a 2003 article. The article I located was dated June 13, 2005 in Coin World and is authored by Eric von Klinger. The article is titled, "Document details half disme" with the subtitle, "Confirms that G. Washington was source of silver." Another resource i reviewed is David Lange's book, "History of the United States Mint and its Coinage." In the chapter titled, "The First Federal Coins" he takes a more open view to the silver deposited by George Washington as possibly being his silverware: "An old legend has it that President and Mrs. Washington donated some of their silverware to be melted as a supply of bullion for these first coins. Though this wonderful tale cannot be confirmed, it is more believable than it may seem. The president took a very personal interest in the affairs of the Mint.... in fact he frequently stopped by the mint on his daily walk to work! In his annual address to the nation in November [of 1792], Washington, alluding to the sliver half dismes, mentioned that a 'small beginning' had been made in the matter of coinage."
In any event, Realone, I think you will agree that the "mystery" that accompanies our half dismes certainly adds to their attraction. Personally, I love coins that have a story as a part of their provenance.
Your reference to firstmint's contributions here on this forum brought to mind a reply he made with regard to another coin of mine that has a unique story as part of its provenance as I have alluded to in prior posts on this thread - my 1850 $20 Gold Piece which is attributed to Dr. C.W. Green and had been holdered with a proof grade. Firstmint added the additional information about my coin's history posting, "That is certainly a distinctive coin. However, in 1949, when Max Mehl catalogued it, he disagreed with the Proof designation. .....IMO, the coin is a first strike from the regular production dies, that happened to get saved and ended up in numismatic channels. That would be the real story behind this nice coin. Edited to add the rest of the story - After doing some quick research and looking for an answer to the reason for such a coin being saved, I uncovered the original appearance for this particular coin. It came from the James B. Longacre estate (the coin's designer). and was sold in the January 21, 1870 auction sale conducted by M(oses) Thomas & Sons in Philidelphia. It was lot #178."
Subsequent to firstmint's posting informing me about the coin being a "first strike" I went back to Breen's writings and located the following reference in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, "(1) J.B. Longacre estate, 1870:178, at a then astonishing $27, 'from the first dies used for the double eagle.' (2) Dr. Green:719 at a then extraordinary $315) ...."
Here is a photo I took of my coin - the 1850 $20 gold piece. Maybe someday the "the first dollar struck" back in 1794, can be paired with mine, the "first $20 struck" in 1850.
<< <i>MAYBE SOMEDAY THE "FIRST STRUCK DOLLAR" FROM 1794 CAN BE PAIRED WITH THE "FIRST STRUCK TWENTY DOLLAR" FROM 1850!
<< <i>So did George Waxshington ever use his own silver ware for coinage, .....? >>
There has been quite a lot of speculation about whether George Washington provided his own silverware for the production of the 1792 half disme. It is now evident, however, that he did provide the silver whether in the form of silverware or not. I found it interesting that one of the researchers compared inventory records of items at Mt. Vernon over various periods of time and in an inventory done after 1792 the silverware that had previously been inventoried was no longer listed. Since I have a half disme in my collection this story has always been of interest to me though even more meaningful is knowing that since so few were minted that Thomas Jefferson and/or George Washington were involved in the handling of this single batch of a reported 1500 coins (of which only 10% are estimated to have survived to our day). >>
That is quite interesting, would you know the date of the inventoried items that was done before and after 1792 and would you have copies of both for perusing. I too have a 1792 and would find this of great importance. Thanks! >>
I have spent several hours researching through my numismatic historical materials in an attempt to locate the source of the Mt. Vernon inventory records that I initially referenced. Interestingly although I did not locate what i was looking for, i did come across an article referencing research done by Joel Orosz and Carl Herkowitz - the same persons you referenced in a subsequent post in a 2003 article. The article I located was dated June 13, 2005 in Coin World and is authored by Eric von Klinger. The article is titled, "Document details half disme" with the subtitle, "Confirms that G. Washington was source of silver." Another resource i reviewed is David Lange's book, "History of the United States Mint and its Coinage." In the chapter titled, "The First Federal Coins" he takes a more open view to the silver deposited by George Washington as possibly being his silverware: "An old legend has it that President and Mrs. Washington donated some of their silverware to be melted as a supply of bullion for these first coins. Though this wonderful tale cannot be confirmed, it is more believable than it may seem. The president took a very personal interest in the affairs of the Mint.... in fact he frequently stopped by the mint on his daily walk to work! In his annual address to the nation in November [of 1792], Washington, alluding to the sliver half dismes, mentioned that a 'small beginning' had been made in the matter of coinage."
In any event, Realone, I think you will agree that the "mystery" that accompanies our half dismes certainly adds to their attraction. Personally, I love coins that have a story as a part of their provenance.
Your reference to firstmint's contributions here on this forum brought to mind a reply he made with regard to another coin of mine that has a unique story as part of its provenance as I have alluded to in prior posts on this thread - my 1850 $20 Gold Piece which is attributed to Dr. C.W. Green and had been holdered with a proof grade. Firstmint added the additional information about my coin's history posting, "That is certainly a distinctive coin. However, in 1949, when Max Mehl catalogued it, he disagreed with the Proof designation. .....IMO, the coin is a first strike from the regular production dies, that happened to get saved and ended up in numismatic channels. That would be the real story behind this nice coin. Edited to add the rest of the story - After doing some quick research and looking for an answer to the reason for such a coin being saved, I uncovered the original appearance for this particular coin. It came from the James B. Longacre estate (the coin's designer). and was sold in the January 21, 1870 auction sale conducted by M(oses) Thomas & Sons in Philidelphia. It was lot #178."
Subsequent to firstmint's posting informing me about the coin being a "first strike" I went back to Breen's writings and located the following reference in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, "(1) J.B. Longacre estate, 1870:178, at a then astonishing $27, 'from the first dies used for the double eagle.' (2) Dr. Green:719 at a then extraordinary $315) ...."
Here is a photo I took of my coin - the 1850 $20 gold piece. Maybe someday the "the first dollar struck" back in 1794, can be paired with mine, the "first $20 struck" in 1850.
<< <i>Good lord man - can't you start your own thread??? >>
Indeed!
<< <i>It appeared someone was suggesting that the silver for the 1794 dollar was rumored to have been sourced from George Washington's silverware instead of for the half disme so was responding to same. Agree that apart from 1792 being the first year of issue of any U.S. silver coin (the half disme) and 1794 being the first year of issue of the silver dollar the two topics do deserve separate threads >>
Also, it seemed that you're here to market/lobby the special status of your double eagle. Start a new thread for that, please...
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>It appeared someone was suggesting that the silver for the 1794 dollar was rumored to have been sourced from George Washington's silverware instead of for the half disme so was responding to same. Agree that apart from 1792 being the first year of issue of any U.S. silver coin (the half disme) and 1794 being the first year of issue of the silver dollar the two topics do deserve separate threads >>
Also, it seemed that you're here to market/lobby the special status of your double eagle. Start a new thread for that, please... >>
Yes, it seems out of context to market your 1850 double eagle in 5 separate posts in a thread about the 1794 Dollar. Also, it would seem that SEGS considers your coin to be a "problem" coin, as noted by the asterisk following the description "enhanced surfaces." Per the SEGS Website:
"SEGS will encapsulate coins that have certain "problem" conditions and meet certain criteria as set forth by SEGS. These coins will be accompanied by our normal label and will be identifiable by a small star symbol located on the extreme mid right of the SEGS label accompanied by written descriptive of the coin's particular problem (s)."
I would think it would be very difficult to establish a coin as being a "presentation piece" when the coin's surfaces had been doctored, but please let that be a topic for your own thread on the subject.
Separately, with regard to the notation on the holder as to "enhanced surfaces," the Superior Galleeries auction description for this subject 1850 twenty dollar as quoted by Coin Facts attributes the "enhanced surfaces" to the dies. To quote directly, "The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking..." Firstmint's conclusions from his research of the historical auction records for the subject coin add the intriguing prospect that like the Cardinal 1794 Dollar, the 1850 Twenty Dollar may also be a first strike.
<< <i>It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Getting back to a serious discussion of the 1794 dollar in question,
if the entire deposit was returned to the depositor in coin form, how is it that 1795 dollars are known struck over reject 1794 dollars?
Was some other silver quietly added to the batch to keep the depositor whole, with the leftover silver (including reject dollars) put back into the pipeline for 1795 coinage? Imagine how hard it would be to take one unique deposit of silver, properly alloy it, cast it into strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, et cetera and ad infinitum, until the last strip cast produces exactly one planchet.
If, hypothetically, some silver substitution took place for the sake of practicality, could not the coin in question (and perhaps others) been taken out as a presentation piece and replaced with an equal amount of good silver?
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Getting back to a serious discussion of the 1794 dollar in question,
if the entire deposit was returned to the depositor in coin form, how is it that 1795 dollars are known struck over reject 1794 dollars?
Was some other silver quietly added to the batch to keep the depositor whole, with the leftover silver (including reject dollars) put back into the pipeline for 1795 coinage? Imagine how hard it would be to take one unique deposit of silver, properly alloy it, cast it into strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, punch out blanks, melt down the leftover and cast it into new strips, et cetera and ad infinitum, until the last strip cast produces exactly one planchet.
If, hypothetically, some silver substitution took place for the sake of practicality, could not the coin in question (and perhaps others) been taken out as a presentation piece and replaced with an equal amount of good silver?
TD >>
Thanks for keeping this thread active as well as for having started it as it is certainly an interesting topic. With regard to the deposit and return of silver it certainly adds to the uniqueness of the early dollars. Personally, I think your hypothetical has merit. Even with the two year earlier mintage of the silver half dismes similar questions remain as to whether there was any "slippage."
<< <i>Please do note that I'm trying to be very careful in what I'm claiming because I used to feel the very same way as many here do - and I do recognize there are other possibilites. There are a few facts in the mix - fact is that the coin is the earliest die state known and matches the copper pattern exactly. Fact is that many experts believe special care was taken in its production. Yes, there could have been a few other specimens struck at the same time and something could have happened to them. Yes, there could have been a few circulation strikes struck before this specimen was struck. But the simplest explanation is that the first coin was struck as a specimen and saved and this is the coin. Not the only explanation, but the simplest. What's that principle that states the simplest explanation is often the best one? >>
Parsimony. Yours is the most parsimonious explanation.
YES ! I beat TDN at something
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5