<< <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 >>
Rittenhouse actually deposited $2001.34 in silver. He received 1,758 silver dollars on October 15, 1794, but it is a matter of record that not all of the struck coins were paid out to him. Some of them were judged too poorly made to release. The 1795 dollars overstruck on those of 1794 are from the held-back pieces. How many pieces were retained by the coiner and not released is unknown though perhaps 100 to 200 pieces might be a fair estimate.
<< <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 >>
Mint records report that on August 29th, 1794 David Rittenhouse deposited 1734.50 troy ounces of refined silver, which represented a value of $2,001.34 -- enough to produce 2,000 silver dollars. 2,000 coins were struck, but 242 of them were rejected, leaving the 1,758 to be delivered to Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794. The 242 rejected pieces remained at the mint, with at least one of them used for the striking of a 1795 BB-14 flowing hair dollar.
I was about to ask, "Who defined what $1 of silver would be?" but found the answer. In case anyone is interested:
[QUOTE]Coinage Act of 1792 specified that the U.S. dollar would contain 371 4⁄16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver. This specification was based on the average weight of a random selection of worn Spanish dollars which Hamilton caused to be weighed at the Treasury.[/QUOTE]
Learn about our world's shared history told through the first millennium of coinage: Colosseo Collection
Mint records report that on August 29th, 1794 David Rittenhouse deposited 1734.50 troy ounces of refined silver, which represented a value of $2,001.34 -- enough to produce 2,000 silver dollars. 2,000 coins were struck, but 242 of them were rejected, leaving the 1,758 to be delivered to Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794. The 242 rejected pieces remained at the mint, with at least one of them used for the striking of a 1795 BB-14 flowing hair dollar. >>
The numbers quoted by Cardinal may be correct but we do not know for certain. It is not possible to prepare 2,000 planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver but there is an additional problem: Rittenhouse purchased from Charles Gilchrist the latter’s silver deposit (made on August 22, 1794) worth $1353.63. The Gilchrist silver, like that of Rittenhouse, had been prepared outside the Mint to the proper standard. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that the Gilchrist and Rittenhouse deposits were mixed for the first dollar coinage but this is speculative. Because Rittenhouse purchased the Gilchrist silver the entire run of 1794 dollars was paid out to Rittenhouse which means, of course, that all 1794 dollars were once owned by David Rittenhouse.
I understand that the letter of the law said that a depositor was supposed to get the same silver back that he deposited, but as you say it is impossible to convert 100% of a deposit into usable planchets. Some comingling of silver is so likely as to be a certainty.
If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of 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>I understand that the letter of the law said that a depositor was supposed to get the same silver back that he deposited, but as you say it is impossible to convert 100% of a deposit into usable planchets. Some comingling of silver is so likely as to be a certainty. If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of silver? >>
The law did not require that the same silver be returned, only that the depositors would be paid in the order that the silver was brought to the Mint. In some cases, however, it was not possible for technical reasons to adhere to the law; in such instances the Mint asked certain depositors to waive their rights in terms of being paid. For example, the first depositor (in July 1794), the Bank of Maryland, agreed to wait on its silver - mostly French billon coinage - because of the difficulty in refining it to standard.
<< <i>I understand that the letter of the law said that a depositor was supposed to get the same silver back that he deposited, but as you say it is impossible to convert 100% of a deposit into usable planchets. Some comingling of silver is so likely as to be a certainty. If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of silver? >>
The law did not require that the same silver be returned, only that the depositors would be paid in the order that the silver was brought to the Mint. In some cases, however, it was not possible for technical reasons to adhere to the law; in such instances the Mint asked certain depositors to waive their rights in terms of being paid. For example, the first depositor (in July 1794), the Bank of Maryland, agreed to wait on its silver - mostly French billon coinage - because of the difficulty in refining it to standard. >>
Ah, so there was no legal reason why a few coins could not be held back as souvenirs of the first silver striking!
We still cannot prove that they were, only that it was possible.
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> Ah, so there was no legal reason why a few coins could not be held back as souvenirs of the first silver striking!
We still cannot prove that they were, only that it was possible. >>
It is unlikely that extra pieces were made for private distribution of the October 1794 dollar coinage. It is known that Rittenhouse made an effort to see that the coins were distributed throughout the country and anyone in Philadelphia who wanted a specimen could simply have given the director a Spanish dollar in exchange. He would, one would think, have kept the best pieces for a limited distribution. It is likely, for example, that one such piece went to the President, who was absent from Philadelphia at the time of striking.
Pieces could have been held back and there was a mechanism for doing so, used prior to 1860 for the silver and gold proof coinage. One simply replaced the bullion used so that the accounts showed the same amount of pure metal.
<< <i>It is not possible to prepare 2,000 planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver >>
I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage."
I would expect that part of the difference between the amount deposited and the amount coined of the 1794 dollars was due to planchet filings, punching and drawing scrap, and rejected planchets. The Mint would have had to melt it back down and refine, roll it, drawing, punch new planchets, adjusting, annealing, clean etc., which is a fairly long process that would have been completed after the October 15, 1794 delivery of 1,758 dollars. As was stated earlier the refining was done outside the Mint for the 1794 dollars, so there was no loss with that process.
The images are from an original printing of this document that I own, published by Gales & Seaton, printers for Congress at the time.
edit 2/13 - Denga added this piece of information, "On an earlier topic, I have found that the Mint had on hand about $1,125,000 in uncoined gold and silver at the end of 1830. This reduces the difference between the published total of gold and silver deposits, as compared to actual coinage, to a considerable degree."
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>It is not possible to prepare 2,000 planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver >>
I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage."
I would expect that part of the difference between the amount deposited and the amount coined of the 1794 dollars was due to planchet filings, punching and drawing scrap, and rejected planchets. The Mint would have had to melt it back down and refine, roll it, drawing, punch new planchets, adjusting, annealing, clean etc., which is a fairly long process that would have been completed after the October 15, 1794 delivery of 1,758 dollars. As was stated earlier the refining was done outside the Mint for the 1794 dollars, so there was no loss with that process.
The images are from an original printing of this document that I own, published by Gales & Seaton, printers for Congress at the time.
edit - I will post the other images when Photobucket is back up
>>
Thanks. It is again interesting how looking ahead to the Mint's practices and record keeping into the 1800's is again helpful in adding perspective to the minting of the 1794 dollar. Dare I ask if you have records that address the 1850 minting of the first twenty dollar gold pieces?
"I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage." "
The difference between $25.053 million deposited and $23.873 million coined is rather large, and well beyond the tolerable wastage. I suspect that most of the difference was returned as refined bars.
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>The Gilchrist silver, like that of Rittenhouse, had been prepared outside the Mint to the proper standard. >>
Denga - is that indicated on specific deposit record? Ie. does the record mention if it was coins, silver plate, etc. >>
Yes & no. The deposit record merely says bullion (i.e. ingots) but as the gross weight of the silver deposited matches the standard weight for the coinage it is clear that the ingots were refined in advance to the exact legal fineness.
<< <i>"I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage." "
The difference between $25.053 million deposited and $23.873 million coined is rather large, and well beyond the tolerable wastage. I suspect that most of the difference was returned as refined bars. >>
While there is an apparent difference, of a significant sum, there is another problem. In some cases deposits were made but later withdrawn for various reasons. These withdrawals are difficult to track and the total amount of bullion brought to the Mint in any given year is subject to some uncertainty. Only one instance, in the mid 1830s, has been found so far of bars being made.
Interesting. I don't know why I thought that they had always offered refinery services.
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 think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy).
Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
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>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
It's possible but without any documentation it's all speculation, guessing, and perhaps for some wishful thinking. Also, how can we tell that the planchet was polished? Can't a well polished die result in proof-like surfaces on a well struck coin similar to DMPL Morgan dollars?
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>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point. The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments? It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck. Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible? TD >>
Yes, but I think unlikely. It is true that the President would have been the final arbiter in terms of design but he was not in Philadelphia for some time prior to the first striking of dollars.
On an earlier topic, I have found that the Mint had on hand about $1,125,000 in uncoined gold and silver at the end of 1830. This reduces the difference between the published total of gold and silver deposits, as compared to actual coinage, to a considerable degree.
<< <i>I think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy). >>
Yes, I think they would have cared about the weight, otherwise we would not see the plugs and adjustment marks on this coinage.
<< <i>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
Well, according to Vattemare (1861), the 1794 dollar depicts Washington in his youth. So it makes PERFECT sense they would go check it out with George first. Vattemare's source, naturally, is not stated
I'm not convinced as to the level of Washington's involvement in everyday matters at the Mint. There is a little bit in the literature but not enough to convince me he would get into a detail like this. There is oral tradition (70 years later) that he was there all the time. Of course, given the 19th century Washington-mania, if you were working for the Mint in that period, you would essentially be tooting your own to make such an assertion (even if it was actually true).
<< <i>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
It's possible but without any documentation it's all speculation, guessing, and perhaps for some wishful thinking. Also, how can we tell that the planchet was polished? Can't a well polished die result in proof-like surfaces on a well struck coin similar to DMPL Morgan dollars? >>
If I have been paying attention...
this is more polished than the early strikes of the other 1794 dollars out and about.
The amount of polishing in the Legend 1794 is such that one is lead to conclude that the planchet had to be that polished up.
With sufficient pressure, a highly polished die can impart a highly polished surface onto a rough planchet. While at ANACS we certified a "clock" of 12 different Morgan and Peace dollars struck off-center at the 1 o'clock position, the 2 o'clock, position, etc.
One of them was an S-Mint from the 1879-1881 period with the highly reflective surfaces typical of San Francisco from that period. The unstruck areas of the planchet was fully frosted from the planchet preparation process, while the fields of the struck part bore the normal luster of a coin of that date.
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 just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase!
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
That is all that matters!
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 just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
That is all that matters! >>
Yes and it would be a pain to return at this point
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
Terrific! By the way thanks for the insights you have shared in the guess the sale price thread on the bidding process and allowing the forum here to be proxy participants in what certainly has to be the major numismatic event of the year to date.
<< <i>With sufficient pressure, a highly polished die can impart a highly polished surface onto a rough planchet. While at ANACS we certified a "clock" of 12 different Morgan and Peace dollars struck off-center at the 1 o'clock position, the 2 o'clock, position, etc.
One of them was an S-Mint from the 1879-1881 period with the highly reflective surfaces typical of San Francisco from that period. The unstruck areas of the planchet was fully frosted from the planchet preparation process, while the fields of the struck part bore the normal luster of a coin of that date. >>
intereting point...
counter point, could the die state on that morgan been such that it took the polished look away?
I see in Numismatic News that if I could only have bought this coin a few years before I was born...........................for $1,250....................
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may: Was that the total for the year 1794? Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795. These were considered coins struck for circulation.
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may: Was that the total for the year 1794? Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795. These were considered coins struck for circulation. >>
Thanks! but wouldn't such a small delivery of under 2000 dollars be considered too small to effect circulation coinage and more akin to a proof/presentation number? >>
I seriously doubt that there were 2000 coin collectors or other persons interested in coins in the United States at that time. Also the vast majority of surviving specimens are well circulated indicating that they were made to circulate in commerce.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may: Was that the total for the year 1794? Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795. These were considered coins struck for circulation. >>
Thanks! But wouldn't such a small delivery of under 2000 dollars be considered too small to effect circulation coinage and more akin to a proof/presentation number? >>
Not really, as there are numerous instances of small deliveries in the Mint records. The first delivery of quarter eagles in 1796 (September 21), for example, was only 66 pieces. The first, and only, delivery of half dollars in 1794 (December 1) was a mere 5,300 pieces.
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
Thank you for getting us back on track. V-Day in NYC - the timing worked out just right for you
<< <i>Thanks again! I just wondered since there seems to be assuredness in these cases that there was a sufficient enough delivered for circulation but for some reason with the 1792 H10c's where a similar amount 1500-2000 was minted and yet they are at times called patterns and at times called circulation pieces, why the ambiguity with hald dismes? Seemed to me that 1500-2000 was sufficient for circulation and yet many here, there, everywhere disagree? >>
I happen to think that the 1792 half dismes were struck for circulation and are not patterns. As a minor footnote to the affair it is known, with reasonable certainty, that Adam Eckfeldt was not present for the striking of the half dismes.
Perhaps early collectors thought that since the Mint did not officially open until 1793, anything struck in 1792 must be a pattern and not an official coin.
I personally have no problem agreeing that they are regular issue U.S. coins struck for circulation.
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 think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy). >>
Yes, I think they would have cared about the weight, otherwise we would not see the plugs and adjustment marks on this coinage. >>
What I was trying to suggest was that BECAUSE of the plug and adjustment marks, I would not think it's a first strike. Surely the mint director would not want adjustment marks mucking up a "first strike".
<< <i>Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks? >>
File the edge down smoothly, instead of gouging the fields.
But I don't think they cared about flaws that 21st century collectors care about.
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>Perhaps early collectors thought that since the Mint did not officially open until 1793, anything struck in 1792 must be a pattern and not an official coin.
I personally have no problem agreeing that they are regular issue U.S. coins struck for circulation. >>
Another vote for "regular issue" though I do note in the literature it is often stated that George Washington ultimately gave out many to friends and dignitaries as one would specimens rather than just using them to buy powder for his wig.
A little long winded, but Captain Henway did ask for “strong opinions.”
There is an attribute of the planchet for the subject 1794 Dollar that has been mentioned, although the significance may have been overlooked. Adjustment marks are common on the 1794-95 Flowing Hair type. For dollars, enough silver plugs have been located that they are no longer “rare” by the Sheldon rarity scale. Sometimes called “experimental,” the plugs were obviously part of an accepted process for 1795. What is significant, and very rare for the type, is adjustment marks on both sides. The Carter 1794 Dollar may be unique for the FH type with adjustment marks on both sides along with a silver plug.
I have purchased and observed many early US silver and gold coins, and have found that adjustment marks are almost always on one side, with a few exceptions including the Carter 1794 Dollar. From my experience, adjustment marks appear on about 25% of FH half dollars and dollars, and this approximation may be low considering that some coins probably had adjustment marks that were completely obliterated by the strike.
The early US Mint had reported problems with the rollers that are used to form silver bars into flat strips for planchets. The early horse drawn rolling machinery was the first Mint equipment to convert to steam power, in 1816. The initial rolling and drawing equipment could not hold tolerance for thickness, requiring adjusting for thick planchets or plugs for those rolled too thin. Reasons for rolling variation could include roller deflection and loose fit of spindles to bushings. Sometimes the rolling and drawing was accurate enough to be within weight tolerances. It appears the Mint erred on the thick side as more FH silver type have adjustment marks than plugs.
Without the adjusting and plugging process for the first couple of years for silver, the Mint could not respond quickly to their depositors, as an underweight planchet would have had to go through the lengthy processes of melting, refining, assaying, rolling, etc. A plug could be fabricated in minutes, using scrap from punching. Considering the planchet punching process, a square will lose more than 21% of weight when punched into a round planchet. Drawing and adjusting will lose more weight. The majority of this scrap silver would have to be re-melted, except for the approximate one quarter of one percent “wastage.” The Mint apparently had some buffer stock by 1796 along with a probable improvement in rolling, and the plugging process was discontinued.
It has been written that silver plugged planchets were the result of mistakes by the adjusters who filed too much silver. I don’t believe this except for rare cases. The adjusting process was among the lowest paid and with the least skill needed of early Mint jobs. It is simple and easy to file silver and gold to within spec limits. Chief Adjuster John Cope would not have tolerated errors to the magnitude of the number of plugged planchets. Rather than being caused by adjusting error, plugged planchets were the result of variability in the rolling process which rolled the silver strips too thin.
Since the Carter 1794 Dollar is probably unique with the silver plug and adjustment marks on both sides, I believe it is most likely an experimental planchet (or a planchet trial for the 1795 “experiment”) used to prove the process of adjusting and plugging planchets to within tolerances, alleviating the lengthy requirement of melting, refining, etc. Questions that would need to be answered by the experiment include – Until the large press is finished, does the current press have enough force to press out adjustment marks to an acceptable level on both sides of a silver dollar planchet? Does the current press have the power to force fit a large silver plug? Once the processes were proven as practicable, the standard methods were to adjust one side of a planchet or to use a silver plug, if weight was out of spec.
I don’t believe the Carter 1794 Dollar planchet was mistakenly over adjusted. The team of six adjusters in October of 1795 was not in place a year earlier when it was struck, and it could have been conceivably adjusted by Chief Coiner Henry Voigt or one of his “artists” as Robert Scot referred to them. The early key Mint employees were quite ingenious and mechanically adept, and it is unlikely they would have made a mistake on this very simple job. Also, the uniqueness of adjusting on both sides strongly indicates experimentation with a not yet standardized process, rather than an error.
It is impossible to effectively polish an adjusted planchet. The Carter 1794 Dollar was not adjusted only towards the edges, as the angle of the file required to do this would have greatly thinned the edges. The coin proves this did not happen. The planchet was filed flat through the centers, and the adjustment marks were obliterated with the well struck centers and portions of the edges, but remain in areas more weakly struck or out of parallel (as in left side obverse facing). I don’t believe the 1794 dollar planchet was polished. If anyone doesn’t believe me, try polishing a filed silver surface. I also don’t believe the planchet was frosted with an acid solution to give a cameo contrast. Robert Scot did not use etching in any of his copperplate or other known engravings. Robert Scot did have vast experience in polishing copperplate to a mirror surface (I actually handled one of his few surviving copperplates). The 1794 dollar has a slight cameo-like contrast to the prooflike fields because the fields were polished as standard process, while the cavities of the die were not polished to the same degree.
I also don’t think it was a die trial strike, the two copper examples were used for that purpose, as they also did with some 1794 copper half dollar die trials. Likewise, I don’t believe it was a presentation striking, the Mint employees were smarter than to use a plugged planchet with both sides adjusted for presentation purposes. It was a special coin though, for the people who may have used it as evidence to prove a process, just as a number of die trials from 1794 were saved.
If it was an experimental planchet, there is no reason to believe it is not a “coin,” as a number of experimental 1793 and onward coins are known. Many experimental dies, planchets, and designs became part of the “regular series” of coins.
To answer the OP question, an experimental planchet used to prove a proposed process would bring it much closer to the first strike, but there could have been one or two other experimental planchets struck prior. With over 92% of the 1794 dollars delivered currently unknown, the evidence to accurately compare die stage does not exist.
In summary, I believe the unique attributes of a silver plug combined with adjusting on both sides of the Carter 1794 Dollar indicate an experimental planchet for a planchet trial strike, used as proof of process to validate that the adjusting and plugging methods could mitigate variability with the rolling process, enabling more expedient delivery of coins to depositors.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
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.
A few observations after holding the coin in hand:
The adjustment marks seem different to me than many that I have seen. They do seem to be concentrated on the edges and in a light and crisscross manner
The fact that the strike is light at the edges is curious. The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? Also, the planchet has a slight split. Could this be an indication of adjustment at the edges leaving a too thin planchet at the edge?
The statement that the planchet was adjusted across the faces of both sides is a supposition not supported by facts as any evidence supporting the assertion has been obliterated. The lightness and crisscrossness of the adjustment marks remaining at the edges would also seem to be contrary to the assertion - as is the fabric of the coin. If the mint would not have attempted to polish a planchet with adjustment marks across the face, the spectacular finish on the dollar would seem to be an indication that it never did have such. I do think the reason for light planchet marks on both sides is that they were attempting on purpose to avoid any heavy marks toward the middle of the coin
Comments
<< <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 >>
Rittenhouse actually deposited $2001.34 in silver. He received 1,758 silver dollars on October 15, 1794,
but it is a matter of record that not all of the struck coins were paid out to him. Some of them were judged
too poorly made to release. The 1795 dollars overstruck on those of 1794 are from the held-back pieces.
How many pieces were retained by the coiner and not released is unknown though perhaps 100 to 200
pieces might be a fair estimate.
<< <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 >>
Mint records report that on August 29th, 1794 David Rittenhouse deposited 1734.50 troy ounces of refined silver, which represented a value of $2,001.34 -- enough to produce 2,000 silver dollars. 2,000 coins were struck, but 242 of them were rejected, leaving the 1,758 to be delivered to Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794. The 242 rejected pieces remained at the mint, with at least one of them used for the striking of a 1795 BB-14 flowing hair dollar.
Edited to add: Denga beat me to it!!
[QUOTE]Coinage Act of 1792 specified that the U.S. dollar would contain 371 4⁄16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver. This specification was based on the average weight of a random selection of worn Spanish dollars which Hamilton caused to be weighed at the Treasury.[/QUOTE]
Mint records report that on August 29th, 1794 David Rittenhouse deposited 1734.50 troy ounces of refined silver, which represented a value of $2,001.34 -- enough to produce 2,000 silver dollars. 2,000 coins were struck, but 242 of them were rejected, leaving the 1,758 to be delivered to Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794. The 242 rejected pieces remained at the mint, with at least one of them used for the striking of a 1795 BB-14 flowing hair dollar. >>
The numbers quoted by Cardinal may be correct but we do not know for certain. It is not possible to prepare 2,000
planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver but there is an additional problem: Rittenhouse purchased from Charles
Gilchrist the latter’s silver deposit (made on August 22, 1794) worth $1353.63. The Gilchrist silver, like that of
Rittenhouse, had been prepared outside the Mint to the proper standard. It is possible, and perhaps even likely,
that the Gilchrist and Rittenhouse deposits were mixed for the first dollar coinage but this is speculative. Because
Rittenhouse purchased the Gilchrist silver the entire run of 1794 dollars was paid out to Rittenhouse which means,
of course, that all 1794 dollars were once owned by David Rittenhouse.
If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of silver?
<< <i>I understand that the letter of the law said that a depositor was supposed to get the same silver back that he deposited, but as you say it is impossible to convert 100% of a deposit into usable planchets. Some comingling of silver is so likely as to be a certainty.
If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of silver? >>
The law did not require that the same silver be returned, only that the depositors would be paid in the
order that the silver was brought to the Mint. In some cases, however, it was not possible for technical
reasons to adhere to the law; in such instances the Mint asked certain depositors to waive their rights
in terms of being paid. For example, the first depositor (in July 1794), the Bank of Maryland, agreed to
wait on its silver - mostly French billon coinage - because of the difficulty in refining it to standard.
<< <i>
<< <i>I understand that the letter of the law said that a depositor was supposed to get the same silver back that he deposited, but as you say it is impossible to convert 100% of a deposit into usable planchets. Some comingling of silver is so likely as to be a certainty.
If we accept that, and the people at the Mint as resaonably rational people presumably accepted that, would it have made any practical difference if the depositor received back 97.1% of his actual silver in the dollars delivered instead of 97.2%, with one or more of the first strikes retained by an unknown Mint official in exchange for the equivalent amount of silver? >>
The law did not require that the same silver be returned, only that the depositors would be paid in the
order that the silver was brought to the Mint. In some cases, however, it was not possible for technical
reasons to adhere to the law; in such instances the Mint asked certain depositors to waive their rights
in terms of being paid. For example, the first depositor (in July 1794), the Bank of Maryland, agreed to
wait on its silver - mostly French billon coinage - because of the difficulty in refining it to standard. >>
Ah, so there was no legal reason why a few coins could not be held back as souvenirs of the first silver striking!
We still cannot prove that they were, only that it was possible.
<< <i> Ah, so there was no legal reason why a few coins could not be held back as souvenirs of the first silver striking!
We still cannot prove that they were, only that it was possible. >>
It is unlikely that extra pieces were made for private distribution of the October 1794 dollar coinage. It is
known that Rittenhouse made an effort to see that the coins were distributed throughout the country and
anyone in Philadelphia who wanted a specimen could simply have given the director a Spanish dollar in
exchange. He would, one would think, have kept the best pieces for a limited distribution. It is likely, for
example, that one such piece went to the President, who was absent from Philadelphia at the time of striking.
Pieces could have been held back and there was a mechanism for doing so, used prior to 1860 for the
silver and gold proof coinage. One simply replaced the bullion used so that the accounts showed the same
amount of pure metal.
<< <i>The Gilchrist silver, like that of Rittenhouse, had been prepared outside the Mint to the proper standard. >>
Denga - is that indicated on specific deposit record? Ie. does the record mention if it was coins, silver plate, etc.
<< <i>It is not possible to prepare 2,000 planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver >>
I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage."
I would expect that part of the difference between the amount deposited and the amount coined of the 1794 dollars was due to planchet filings, punching and drawing scrap, and rejected planchets. The Mint would have had to melt it back down and refine, roll it, drawing, punch new planchets, adjusting, annealing, clean etc., which is a fairly long process that would have been completed after the October 15, 1794 delivery of 1,758 dollars. As was stated earlier the refining was done outside the Mint for the 1794 dollars, so there was no loss with that process.
The images are from an original printing of this document that I own, published by Gales & Seaton, printers for Congress at the time.
edit 2/13 - Denga added this piece of information, "On an earlier topic, I have found that the Mint had on hand about $1,125,000 in uncoined gold
and silver at the end of 1830. This reduces the difference between the published total of gold
and silver deposits, as compared to actual coinage, to a considerable degree."
<< <i>
<< <i>It is not possible to prepare 2,000 planchets from $2001.34 worth of silver >>
I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage."
I would expect that part of the difference between the amount deposited and the amount coined of the 1794 dollars was due to planchet filings, punching and drawing scrap, and rejected planchets. The Mint would have had to melt it back down and refine, roll it, drawing, punch new planchets, adjusting, annealing, clean etc., which is a fairly long process that would have been completed after the October 15, 1794 delivery of 1,758 dollars. As was stated earlier the refining was done outside the Mint for the 1794 dollars, so there was no loss with that process.
The images are from an original printing of this document that I own, published by Gales & Seaton, printers for Congress at the time.
edit - I will post the other images when Photobucket is back up
Thanks. It is again interesting how looking ahead to the Mint's practices and record keeping into the 1800's is again helpful in adding perspective to the minting of the 1794 dollar. Dare I ask if you have records that address the 1850 minting of the first twenty dollar gold pieces?
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage." "
The difference between $25.053 million deposited and $23.873 million coined is rather large, and well beyond the tolerable wastage. I suspect that most of the difference was returned as refined bars.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Gilchrist silver, like that of Rittenhouse, had been prepared outside the Mint to the proper standard. >>
Denga - is that indicated on specific deposit record? Ie. does the record mention if it was coins, silver plate, etc. >>
Yes & no. The deposit record merely says bullion (i.e. ingots) but as the gross weight of the silver deposited matches the
standard weight for the coinage it is clear that the ingots were refined in advance to the exact legal fineness.
<< <i>"I have posted some images of an original document to prove Denga's statement. Mint Director Samuel Moore had provided information to Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham explaining the amount of gold and silver deposited and subsequently coined, along with the amount of "wastage," or metal lost.
The cumulative gold and silver deposited from 1815 to 1830 was $25,053,511.86, while the cumulative amount of this coined in the same period was $23,873,701.90. In some years the coinage exceeded deposits, I would expect this was from the timing lag of the deposits to coinage. The amount of wastage is listed in the table and text. Although the table does not include the earlier Mint years, the processes were basically the same.
The Mint would have small and varying amounts of silver and gold lost during the processes of melting & refining, rolling, drawing, punching, adjusting, and cleaning after annealing. Some of this was mostly recoverable, such as the filings from adjusting and excess after punching planchets. Some was unrecoverable which was the "wastage." "
The difference between $25.053 million deposited and $23.873 million coined is rather large, and well beyond the tolerable wastage. I suspect that most of the difference was returned as refined bars. >>
While there is an apparent difference, of a significant sum, there is another problem. In some cases deposits were
made but later withdrawn for various reasons. These withdrawals are difficult to track and the total amount of bullion
brought to the Mint in any given year is subject to some uncertainty. Only one instance, in the mid 1830s, has been
found so far of bars being made.
<< <i>I think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy).
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD
<< <i>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
It's possible but without any documentation it's all speculation, guessing, and perhaps for some wishful thinking. Also, how can we tell that the planchet was polished? Can't a well polished die result in proof-like surfaces on a well struck coin similar to DMPL Morgan dollars?
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>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
Yes, but I think unlikely. It is true that the President would have been the final arbiter in terms
of design but he was not in Philadelphia for some time prior to the first striking of dollars.
On an earlier topic, I have found that the Mint had on hand about $1,125,000 in uncoined gold
and silver at the end of 1830. This reduces the difference between the published total of gold
and silver deposits, as compared to actual coinage, to a considerable degree.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy). >>
Yes, I think they would have cared about the weight, otherwise we would not see the plugs and
adjustment marks on this coinage.
<< <i>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
Well, according to Vattemare (1861), the 1794 dollar depicts Washington in his youth. So it makes PERFECT sense they would go check it out with George first. Vattemare's source, naturally, is not stated
I'm not convinced as to the level of Washington's involvement in everyday matters at the Mint. There is a little bit in the literature but not enough to convince me he would get into a detail like this. There is oral tradition (70 years later) that he was there all the time. Of course, given the 19th century Washington-mania, if you were working for the Mint in that period, you would essentially be tooting your own to make such an assertion (even if it was actually true).
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is a theory I do not think has been floated before. Please correct me if I am wrong as to that point.
The coin in question is a trial strike, in silver, struck immediately after the trial strike (with stars) in copper, and at some unknown time before the production run began. Comments?
It might have been shown to various people, perhaps including President Washington, perhaps not, before committing the prepared planchets to being struck.
Just a theory, and I cannot prove it, but is it plausible?
TD >>
It's possible but without any documentation it's all speculation, guessing, and perhaps for some wishful thinking. Also, how can we tell that the planchet was polished? Can't a well polished die result in proof-like surfaces on a well struck coin similar to DMPL Morgan dollars? >>
If I have been paying attention...
this is more polished than the early strikes of the other 1794 dollars out and about.
The amount of polishing in the Legend 1794 is such that one is lead to conclude that the planchet had to be that polished up.
One of them was an S-Mint from the 1879-1881 period with the highly reflective surfaces typical of San Francisco from that period. The unstruck areas of the planchet was fully frosted from the planchet preparation process, while the fields of the struck part bore the normal luster of a coin of that date.
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
That is all that matters!
<< <i>
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
That is all that matters! >>
Yes and it would be a pain to return at this point
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
Terrific! By the way thanks for the insights you have shared in the guess the sale price thread on the bidding process and allowing the forum here to be proxy participants in what certainly has to be the major numismatic event of the year to date.
<< <i>With sufficient pressure, a highly polished die can impart a highly polished surface onto a rough planchet. While at ANACS we certified a "clock" of 12 different Morgan and Peace dollars struck off-center at the 1 o'clock position, the 2 o'clock, position, etc.
One of them was an S-Mint from the 1879-1881 period with the highly reflective surfaces typical of San Francisco from that period. The unstruck areas of the planchet was fully frosted from the planchet preparation process, while the fields of the struck part bore the normal luster of a coin of that date. >>
intereting point...
counter point, could the die state on that morgan been such that it took the polished look away?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may:
Was that the total for the year 1794?
Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795.
These were considered coins struck for circulation.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may:
Was that the total for the year 1794?
Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795.
These were considered coins struck for circulation. >>
Thanks!
but wouldn't such a small delivery of under 2000 dollars be considered too small to effect circulation coinage and more akin to a proof/presentation number? >>
I seriously doubt that there were 2000 coin collectors or other persons interested in coins in the United States at that time. Also the vast majority of surviving specimens are well circulated indicating that they were made to circulate in commerce.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I see that 1758 1794 silver dollars were delivered, a couple of questions if I may:
Was that the total for the year 1794?
Was that considered for circulation, or presentation ie as a pattern or proof and not for circulation? >>
It was the total number of dollars for 1794, the next delivery of this denomination coming in May 1795.
These were considered coins struck for circulation. >>
Thanks! But wouldn't such a small delivery of under 2000 dollars be considered too small to effect circulation coinage and more akin to a proof/presentation number? >>
Not really, as there are numerous instances of small deliveries in the Mint records. The first delivery of
quarter eagles in 1796 (September 21), for example, was only 66 pieces. The first, and only, delivery of
half dollars in 1794 (December 1) was a mere 5,300 pieces.
<< <i>I just spent a half hour in Stacks' offices viewing the coin when Laura and I were arranging shipment. It is clearly something very special. Absolutely love the life on the coin when held at anything other than the dead on angle. Extremely happy with the purchase! >>
Thank you for getting us back on track. V-Day in NYC - the timing worked out just right for you
<< <i>Thanks again! I just wondered since there seems to be assuredness in these cases that there was a sufficient enough delivered for circulation but for some reason with the 1792 H10c's where a similar amount 1500-2000 was minted and yet they are at times called patterns and at times called circulation pieces, why the ambiguity with hald dismes? Seemed to me that 1500-2000 was sufficient for circulation and yet many here, there, everywhere disagree? >>
I happen to think that the 1792 half dismes were struck for circulation and are not patterns. As a minor
footnote to the affair it is known, with reasonable certainty, that Adam Eckfeldt was not present for the striking
of the half dismes.
I personally have no problem agreeing that they are regular issue U.S. coins struck for circulation.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
But would they really care about the weight? Being a first strike (using a polished planchet no less), I would believe the mint was more concerned about appearances than getting the weight right. That seems to be human nature anyway (appearances vs technical accuracy). >>
Yes, I think they would have cared about the weight, otherwise we would not see the plugs and adjustment marks on this coinage. >>
What I was trying to suggest was that BECAUSE of the plug and adjustment marks, I would not think it's a first strike. Surely the mint director would not want adjustment marks mucking up a "first strike".
<< <i>Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks? >>
File the edge down smoothly, instead of gouging the fields.
But I don't think they cared about flaws that 21st century collectors care about.
<< <i>Perhaps early collectors thought that since the Mint did not officially open until 1793, anything struck in 1792 must be a pattern and not an official coin.
I personally have no problem agreeing that they are regular issue U.S. coins struck for circulation. >>
Another vote for "regular issue" though I do note in the literature it is often stated that George Washington ultimately gave out many to friends and dignitaries as one would specimens rather than just using them to buy powder for his wig.
There is an attribute of the planchet for the subject 1794 Dollar that has been mentioned, although the significance may have been overlooked. Adjustment marks are common on the 1794-95 Flowing Hair type. For dollars, enough silver plugs have been located that they are no longer “rare” by the Sheldon rarity scale. Sometimes called “experimental,” the plugs were obviously part of an accepted process for 1795. What is significant, and very rare for the type, is adjustment marks on both sides. The Carter 1794 Dollar may be unique for the FH type with adjustment marks on both sides along with a silver plug.
I have purchased and observed many early US silver and gold coins, and have found that adjustment marks are almost always on one side, with a few exceptions including the Carter 1794 Dollar. From my experience, adjustment marks appear on about 25% of FH half dollars and dollars, and this approximation may be low considering that some coins probably had adjustment marks that were completely obliterated by the strike.
The early US Mint had reported problems with the rollers that are used to form silver bars into flat strips for planchets. The early horse drawn rolling machinery was the first Mint equipment to convert to steam power, in 1816. The initial rolling and drawing equipment could not hold tolerance for thickness, requiring adjusting for thick planchets or plugs for those rolled too thin. Reasons for rolling variation could include roller deflection and loose fit of spindles to bushings. Sometimes the rolling and drawing was accurate enough to be within weight tolerances. It appears the Mint erred on the thick side as more FH silver type have adjustment marks than plugs.
Without the adjusting and plugging process for the first couple of years for silver, the Mint could not respond quickly to their depositors, as an underweight planchet would have had to go through the lengthy processes of melting, refining, assaying, rolling, etc. A plug could be fabricated in minutes, using scrap from punching. Considering the planchet punching process, a square will lose more than 21% of weight when punched into a round planchet. Drawing and adjusting will lose more weight. The majority of this scrap silver would have to be re-melted, except for the approximate one quarter of one percent “wastage.” The Mint apparently had some buffer stock by 1796 along with a probable improvement in rolling, and the plugging process was discontinued.
It has been written that silver plugged planchets were the result of mistakes by the adjusters who filed too much silver. I don’t believe this except for rare cases. The adjusting process was among the lowest paid and with the least skill needed of early Mint jobs. It is simple and easy to file silver and gold to within spec limits. Chief Adjuster John Cope would not have tolerated errors to the magnitude of the number of plugged planchets. Rather than being caused by adjusting error, plugged planchets were the result of variability in the rolling process which rolled the silver strips too thin.
Since the Carter 1794 Dollar is probably unique with the silver plug and adjustment marks on both sides, I believe it is most likely an experimental planchet (or a planchet trial for the 1795 “experiment”) used to prove the process of adjusting and plugging planchets to within tolerances, alleviating the lengthy requirement of melting, refining, etc. Questions that would need to be answered by the experiment include – Until the large press is finished, does the current press have enough force to press out adjustment marks to an acceptable level on both sides of a silver dollar planchet? Does the current press have the power to force fit a large silver plug? Once the processes were proven as practicable, the standard methods were to adjust one side of a planchet or to use a silver plug, if weight was out of spec.
I don’t believe the Carter 1794 Dollar planchet was mistakenly over adjusted. The team of six adjusters in October of 1795 was not in place a year earlier when it was struck, and it could have been conceivably adjusted by Chief Coiner Henry Voigt or one of his “artists” as Robert Scot referred to them. The early key Mint employees were quite ingenious and mechanically adept, and it is unlikely they would have made a mistake on this very simple job. Also, the uniqueness of adjusting on both sides strongly indicates experimentation with a not yet standardized process, rather than an error.
It is impossible to effectively polish an adjusted planchet. The Carter 1794 Dollar was not adjusted only towards the edges, as the angle of the file required to do this would have greatly thinned the edges. The coin proves this did not happen. The planchet was filed flat through the centers, and the adjustment marks were obliterated with the well struck centers and portions of the edges, but remain in areas more weakly struck or out of parallel (as in left side obverse facing). I don’t believe the 1794 dollar planchet was polished. If anyone doesn’t believe me, try polishing a filed silver surface. I also don’t believe the planchet was frosted with an acid solution to give a cameo contrast. Robert Scot did not use etching in any of his copperplate or other known engravings. Robert Scot did have vast experience in polishing copperplate to a mirror surface (I actually handled one of his few surviving copperplates). The 1794 dollar has a slight cameo-like contrast to the prooflike fields because the fields were polished as standard process, while the cavities of the die were not polished to the same degree.
I also don’t think it was a die trial strike, the two copper examples were used for that purpose, as they also did with some 1794 copper half dollar die trials. Likewise, I don’t believe it was a presentation striking, the Mint employees were smarter than to use a plugged planchet with both sides adjusted for presentation purposes. It was a special coin though, for the people who may have used it as evidence to prove a process, just as a number of die trials from 1794 were saved.
If it was an experimental planchet, there is no reason to believe it is not a “coin,” as a number of experimental 1793 and onward coins are known. Many experimental dies, planchets, and designs became part of the “regular series” of coins.
To answer the OP question, an experimental planchet used to prove a proposed process would bring it much closer to the first strike, but there could have been one or two other experimental planchets struck prior. With over 92% of the 1794 dollars delivered currently unknown, the evidence to accurately compare die stage does not exist.
In summary, I believe the unique attributes of a silver plug combined with adjusting on both sides of the Carter 1794 Dollar indicate an experimental planchet for a planchet trial strike, used as proof of process to validate that the adjusting and plugging methods could mitigate variability with the rolling process, enabling more expedient delivery of coins to depositors.
TD
The adjustment marks seem different to me than many that I have seen. They do seem to be concentrated on the edges and in a light and crisscross manner
The fact that the strike is light at the edges is curious. The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? Also, the planchet has a slight split. Could this be an indication of adjustment at the edges leaving a too thin planchet at the edge?
The statement that the planchet was adjusted across the faces of both sides is a supposition not supported by facts as any evidence supporting the assertion has been obliterated. The lightness and crisscrossness of the adjustment marks remaining at the edges would also seem to be contrary to the assertion - as is the fabric of the coin. If the mint would not have attempted to polish a planchet with adjustment marks across the face, the spectacular finish on the dollar would seem to be an indication that it never did have such. I do think the reason for light planchet marks on both sides is that they were attempting on purpose to avoid any heavy marks toward the middle of the coin