Zoins: <<Thanks for the link to the article. Is the name of the professor mentioned in the following line known? It is interesting if the first verified reference to the coin occurred in England.>>
Yes, Newman's article in 1959 cites him. Richard Watson was a famous intellectual in the late 1700s. He held an important position at Cambridge University in England. The Wikipedia notes that " in 1764 Watson was unanimously elected professor of chemistry" despite his own declaration that "he knew nothing of chemistry, ‘had never read a syllable on the subject, nor seen a single experiment ..."!
Catherine Eagleton in the Numismatic Chronicle (as cited in the E-sylum, hopefully fairly): <<It might equally be a case of the die--sinker copying the design from the paper money faithfully in all details, including its errors, and also reproducing the signature of the engraver responsible for the printing plates from which the paper money had been made.” (page 298)>>
David Fanning (in the e-sylum: <<In fact, only the metallic dollar is so signed: the paper money is not. This is a fairly serious lapse.>>
This is not "serious lapse." Although she may be incorrect about some details, Eagleton's reasoning in this passage is sound. Elisha Gallaudet was a very well known engraver in North America and it extremely likely that many interested people in England were aware of his work.
American and British societies have changed a great deal since the late 1700s and early 1800s. There were then a great many people who hand-engraved metal or wood objects for various purposes. Prolific and/or widely respected engravers were often widely known among others who engraved and/or forged metal items. There were many craftsmen who had the skills to copy the work of the better known and/or more talented engravers.
<According to Newman himself, “Since the Continental Currency [metal piece] designs are copied from the fractional paper money, it is possible that the cuts for the paper money were made by the same person who cut the dies for the” Continental Currency pewter pieces (Newman, 1959, p. 917 ...). Of course, it is possible, yet this is a shallow argument. Any talented engraver could have copied the designs from such paper money and engraved dies for fantasy pieces that masquerade as coins.>
Also, we should not assume that all the "Continental Currency" pieces that have been auctioned over the past 160 years or so are necessarily the same pieces that existed in the 1700s. During the first half of the 19th century, a firm could have made novodels to sell as souvenirs. As I said in my article, during the anniversaries of the Declaration of Independence, especially in 1801 or 1826, there would have been a market for such souvenirs, which people could have carried around and shown to their friends.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Has anybody ever tried to match the double-leaf edge to other coins, tokens or medals? Does it match any particular Spanish-American use of that design, or is it just made in close similitude to the generic double-leaf edge design?
And for that matter, why would a British medal manufacturer use a double-leaf edge on a souvenir medal? I had always assumed that the double-leaf edge was meant to imitate the Spanish-American 8 Reales coins the Continental Dollar was meant to circulate alongside, but at this point I must admit I have no idea why the coins have that edge.
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>Also, we should not assume that all the "Continental Currency" pieces that have been auctioned over the past 160 years or so are necessarily the same pieces that existed in the 1700s. During the first half of the 19th century, a firm could have made novodels to sell as souvenirs. As I said in my article, during the anniversaries of the Declaration of Independence, especially in 1801 or 1826, there would have been a market for such souvenirs, which people could have carried around and shown to their friends. >>
This a good point. Many other colonials have had American-made fantasy pieces struck later. What is different about this type is the current lack of information which makes the investigation interesting.
<< <i>Has anybody ever tried to match the double-leaf edge to other coins, tokens or medals? Does it match any particular Spanish-American use of that design, or is it just made in close similitude to the generic double-leaf edge design?
And for that matter, why would a British medal manufacturer use a double-leaf edge on a souvenir medal? I had always assumed that the double-leaf edge was meant to imitate the Spanish-American 8 Reales coins the Continental Dollar was meant to circulate alongside, but at this point I must admit I have no idea why the coins have that edge.
TD >>
Way out of my knowledge on this one, but wouldn't that be exactly why a British manufacturer would have put the edge design on them? They and everyone in the world at that time would have known the Spanish pieces had the design and that the Spanish pieces were of the new continent. What easier short-hand way of making the Continental pieces look and feel more new world and entirely un-English than putting a distinct device associated with North (or central) America on them?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Now that a couple of years have passed, I wonder, did any of this affect the market? Or is it foolish to think that people actually care about the history of their coins? Maybe all that really matters is that the pictures on the coins haven't changed?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This Newman 1-C sold for $164,500.00 at FUN and has a PCGS Price Guide price of $195,000 now. Is it worth more than now in Jan or was the price affected by the history?
I still love the design, but it's interesting to think about whether this is a US coin or a European medal, and whether it was issued in 1776 or struck later.
Great old thread with a lot of information.... No real conclusions though. I have always found it interesting, that on the coin, New York was spelled N Yorke... with an e at the end.... I wonder if that may be a clue we have overlooked... was it ever spelled that way in America? If so, When was the 'e' dropped? Cheers, RickO
@CaptHenway asks: "Has anybody ever tried to match the double-leaf edge to other coins, tokens or medals? "
Yes, on 8 Reales. So long ago I completely forgot about it. As best I remember (PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS), the Continental Dollars did not have the double segmented edge. However, this does not make sense to me as I write this NOW so will someone correct the record (by examining the edge of one) and forgive my forgetfulness.
Ah yes, a fascinating old thread. Just yesterday I was emailing with the author of a great new upcoming article on the first coin provably struck for the United States, and the subject of the status of the Continental Dollars came up. We agreed that nothing was provable about them.
Time for another cup of coffee!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The last time this thread was floating around, I did a little reading about tin in North America during the Revolutionary War. I'd wondered, since - at the time - most of it came from mines in Great Britain, how anyone in the Northeast would have enough to strike the (estimated) 6,000 pieces.
Benjamin Franklin had something interesting to say on the subject in July, 1776:
<Lancaster, July 23, 1776: ... our tinsmiths lack tin for kettles. We have collected most of the available cash from our men of substance, so that something may be advanced to soldiers who need it; and we submit to you whether money should not be sent for the purpose. Most of the militia require some small necessity, and many wish to leave a few shillings with their families; they apply to us and “expect to be here equipped and assisted and it gives us pain to see their disappointment.” Our tinsmiths report no tin to be had in Philadelphia; should there be any to spare from public stores we could continue making kettles and canteens. “We shall use our best endeavour to keep our Gunsmiths busy and do every thing in our power to execute the orders of the Convention and promote the general Interest.” Addressed to Franklin as president of the convention and signed on order of the committee by W. Atlee, Chairman.>
It's curious that, during a shortage of tin, anyone would be striking pattern coins out of that metal. Or that these pieces wouldn't have been melted down en masse for the war effort.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@Regulated said:
The last time this thread was floating around, I did a little reading about tin in North America during the Revolutionary War. I'd wondered, since - at the time - most of it came from mines in Great Britain, how anyone in the Northeast would have enough to strike the (estimated) 6,000 pieces.
Benjamin Franklin had something interesting to say on the subject in July, 1776:
<Lancaster, July 23, 1776: ... our tinsmiths lack tin for kettles. We have collected most of the available cash from our men of substance, so that something may be advanced to soldiers who need it; and we submit to you whether money should not be sent for the purpose. Most of the militia require some small necessity, and many wish to leave a few shillings with their families; they apply to us and “expect to be here equipped and assisted and it gives us pain to see their disappointment.” Our tinsmiths report no tin to be had in Philadelphia; should there be any to spare from public stores we could continue making kettles and canteens. “We shall use our best endeavour to keep our Gunsmiths busy and do every thing in our power to execute the orders of the Convention and promote the general Interest.” Addressed to Franklin as president of the convention and signed on order of the committee by W. Atlee, Chairman.>
It's curious that, during a shortage of tin, anyone would be striking pattern coins out of that metal. Or that these pieces wouldn't have been melted down en masse for the war effort.
Great letter, but was it written by Franklin, or to Franklin?
Just to play devil's advocate, one could speculate that the shortage of tin was caused by it being bought up and used to make Continental Dollars!
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.
Great letter, but was it written by Franklin, or to Franklin?
Just to play devil's advocate, one could speculate that the shortage of tin was caused by it being bought up and used to make Continental Dollars!
TD
My bad - written to him.
I think that you could suggest that the shortage was caused by their striking, but then you would have to explain why they weren't melted, especially since so many never circulated.
With Continental Dollars, the more you look at the issue, the less you know.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@ricko said:
Great old thread with a lot of information.... No real conclusions though. I have always found it interesting, that on the coin, New York was spelled N Yorke... with an e at the end.... I wonder if that may be a clue we have overlooked... was it ever spelled that way in America? If so, When was the 'e' dropped? Cheers, RickO
RickO has a very good point. Coupled with the misspelling of CURRENCY this indicates
that some or all of the dies were prepared abroad, probably in Germany. Spelling errors
and anachronisms (Yorke) were unlikely in this country or in Britain.
Tried looking up how late "YORKE" was an acceptable variant spelling, but could not find a thing.
Looking at the reverse above, I note that without the "E" the name of "N YORK" would have been noticeably shorter than the other states, so maybe the "E" was included for aesthetics. An old printer like Franklin might have done something like that, but who knows?
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Tried looking up how late "YORKE" was an acceptable variant spelling, but could not find a thing.
Looking at the reverse above, I note that without the "E" the name of "N YORK" would have been noticeably shorter than the other states, so maybe the "E" was included for aesthetics. An old printer like Franklin might have done something like that, but who knows?
Interesting point but it seems somewhat unlikely that an obscure state spelling would be used on a coin that was supposed to build confidence and circulate in NY. If anything, an obscure spelling may be more indication that it was a medal not meant for widespread adoption.
Of note, all of the 5 paper versions by Hall & Sellers of Philadelphia on the Notre Dame page spell York correctly without a trailing E. You can see these on the Notre Dame Continental Currency page:
@CaptHenway said:
Ah yes, a fascinating old thread. Just yesterday I was emailing with the author of a great new upcoming article on the first coin provably struck for the United States, and the subject of the status of the Continental Dollars came up. We agreed that nothing was provable about them.
Time for another cup of coffee!
TD
If nothing is provable about them, is it more likely they are fantasy pieces similar to say the Yocum Dollar, than an official issue, where much more information is generally available for others?
@CaptHenway said:
Ah yes, a fascinating old thread. Just yesterday I was emailing with the author of a great new upcoming article on the first coin provably struck for the United States, and the subject of the status of the Continental Dollars came up. We agreed that nothing was provable about them.
Time for another cup of coffee!
TD
If nothing is provable about them, is it more likely they are fantasy pieces similar to say the Yocum Dollar, than an official issue, where much more information is generally available for others?
The low grade of so many Continental Dollars makes me reluctant to assign likeliness to any of the many theories as to their origin. I remain open to all and convinced of none.
As to the Yocum Dollars, I have handled two of them and would call them, from memory, in AU condition, though one of them was later heavily artificially toned in an attempt to convince me that it was a third specimen.
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Ah yes, a fascinating old thread. Just yesterday I was emailing with the author of a great new upcoming article on the first coin provably struck for the United States, and the subject of the status of the Continental Dollars came up. We agreed that nothing was provable about them.
Time for another cup of coffee!
TD
If nothing is provable about them, is it more likely they are fantasy pieces similar to say the Yocum Dollar, than an official issue, where much more information is generally available for others?
The low grade of so many Continental Dollars makes me reluctant to assign likeliness to any of the many theories as to their origin. I remain open to all and convinced of none.
As to the Yocum Dollars, I have handled two of them and would call them, from memory, in AU condition, though one of them was later heavily artificially toned in an attempt to convince me that it was a third specimen.
Regarding grades, it's also interesting to note that many of the Continental Dollars are found in very high grade which is unusual for colonial issues.
The reason the Yocum Dollars were brought up is that there is also very little information on those pieces. Official pieces like coins tend to be well documented which this one doesn't seem to be, for now.
The low grade of so many Continental Dollars makes me reluctant to assign likeliness to any of the many theories as to their origin. I remain open to all and convinced of none.
Betts-614 is remarkably similar to the Continental Dollar (same reverse design, same diameter, same or similar edge, what looks like identical beaded borders, and I'll be damned if the the die work doesn't look like it's from the same hand), was produced as a medal, and comes circulated to heavily circulated in all of the dozen known pieces. It's also interesting that it's dated 1783, the same year that the first report of a Continental Dollar shows up in Europe. All of the Betts-614 pedigrees that I've been able run down into the 19th century end in Britain.
The obverse of the Betts-614 was also produced by someone familiar with London, or at least its landmarks (St. Paul’s, St. Mary-le-Bow, and the Monument of the Gilded Urn appear in the background of the obverse).
On a positive note, there was a discussion of a proposal for a copper coin in mid-1776 to replace worn-out/underweight coins, although it the story originates in a newspaper, not in the papers of Continental Congress (or in any known correspondence by members of that body). No reports of any actual coins are known.
Also: "From the London Chronicle, Dec. 21, 1776. Letters from an officer of the 64th Reg. in York Island to his friend in town. 'The Congress have established a Mint at Philadelphia, where they coin copper and silver pieces about the size of half a crown: In silver go for twelve shillings, in copper for fourteen pence."
Dollars had traded at 7 shillings, 6 pence in Philadelphia in the 1770s, and the known silver Continental Dollars contain about 87.5% of the silver found in a Spanish Silver Dollar, so the numbers don't really add up. Fourteen pence (over a shilling) seems like a lot for a copper coin, too.
Ever wish you had a time machine?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
The low grade of so many Continental Dollars makes me reluctant to assign likeliness to any of the many theories as to their origin. I remain open to all and convinced of none.
Betts-614 is remarkably similar to the Continental Dollar (same reverse design, same diameter, same or similar edge, what looks like identical beaded borders, and I'll be damned if the the die work doesn't look like it's from the same hand), was produced as a medal, and comes circulated to heavily circulated in all of the dozen known pieces. It's also interesting that it's dated 1783, the same year that the first report of a Continental Dollar shows up in Europe. All of the Betts-614 pedigrees that I've been able run down into the 19th century end in Britain.
The obverse of the Betts-614 was also produced by someone familiar with London, or at least its landmarks (St. Paul’s, St. Mary-le-Bow, and the Monument of the Gilded Urn appear in the background of the obverse).
On a positive note, there was a discussion of a proposal for a copper coin in mid-1776 to replace worn-out/underweight coins, although it the story originates in a newspaper, not in the papers of Continental Congress (or in any known correspondence by members of that body). No reports of any actual coins are known.
Also: "From the London Chronicle, Dec. 21, 1776. Letters from an officer of the 64th Reg. in York Island to his friend in town. 'The Congress have established a Mint at Philadelphia, where they coin copper and silver pieces about the size of half a crown: In silver go for twelve shillings, in copper for fourteen pence."
Dollars had traded at 7 shillings, 6 pence in Philadelphia in the 1770s, and the known silver Continental Dollars contain about 87.5% of the silver found in a Spanish Silver Dollar, so the numbers don't really add up. Fourteen pence (over a shilling) seems like a lot for a copper coin, too.
Ever wish you had a time machine?
"A Mint in Philadelphia???" In 1776??? What was he smoking????
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 would be fascinating to sit down and catalogue the verifiable facts (from primary source materials) associated with Continental Dollars. Anyone care to try?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I agree with Tom, No way was there a mint in Philadelphia in 1776... The American Revolution was from 1775 to 1782 (some sources say 1783). No way a mint could have been established at that time. Cheers, RickO
Regulated: It seems to me like the Continental Dollar was included as one of the big three U.S. "firsts" ... Old-time coin dealers sold stories, not well-researched history.
Yes, there is evidence that Continental Currency coinage was proposed or at least suggested circa 1776. It is not known whether such proposals ever really reached Congressmen or whether they were serious at all. As I said above, it is not clear that the physical pieces that we now see pictured in auctions or in reference books were actually minted in the 1770s or even in the 18th century. At this point, it should not be assumed that any of the surviving pieces were minted in the 1770s, though they may have been!
The strongest evidence discovered so far of the use of Continental Currency pieces during the Revolutionary War come from words in a joking, contemporary poem that was written by a Tory in the U.S., who was a propaganda artist for the British. Odell's words were re-published in The Numismatist in July 2014 in an article by "Eric Newman and Maureen Levine," who I believe is married to Stuart Levine.
Regrettably, I did not read that article before I covered the pertinent auction of Newman's material in November 2014. Nevertheless, the material in the Newman/Levine article does not come close to proving that any Continental Currency pieces were minted in the U.S. during the 1770s. Odell was spreading propaganda. He was not a newspaper reporter. In that same article, citations of Paul Revere are illuminating.
Continental Currency pieces may have existed in the U.S. and/or Europe during the 1870s. It could also be true that all that existed then were sketches, precise drawings and/or some kind of written concepts for "Continental" pieces of this sort!
MidLifeCrisis cited the University of Notre Dame site in regard to coinage matters coming before the Continental Congress. Please refer to the analytical remarks in my already mentioned article in 2014. I then refer to a pertinent article that I wrote in 2013:
In March 2013, in an article on the Garrett-Perschke Quint, I pointed out that, “ On Sept. 2, 1776, a committee on gold and silver coinage provided its report to the Continental Congress. It seems that Thomas Jefferson was the leader of this committee, or the most influential member. He wrote the report, literally, in his own handwriting, and compiled a chart that was featured in the report. ... A version of this report was entered into the Journal of the Continental Congress.” I read the original text, including scans of documents written by ‘Jefferson’s hand.’
As best as I can tell, there was then no discussion of "Continental Currency" coinage or of the U.S. manufacturing her own coins of any sort in 1776 or soon afterwards.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
@Regulated said:
It would be fascinating to sit down and catalogue the verifiable facts (from primary source materials) associated with Continental Dollars. Anyone care to try?
@Analyst said: Regulated: It seems to me like the Continental Dollar was included as one of the big three U.S. "firsts" ... Old-time coin dealers sold stories, not well-researched history.
Yes, there is evidence that Continental Currency coinage was proposed or at least suggested circa 1776. It is not known whether such proposals ever really reached Congressmen or whether they were serious at all. As I said above, it is not clear that the physical pieces that we now see pictured in auctions or in reference books were actually minted in the 1770s or even in the 18th century. At this point, it should not be assumed that any of the surviving pieces were minted in the 1770s, though they may have been!
Whether those proposals reached Congress or not, we can infer that as of early 1777, there was no mint, since Congress began discussing the establishment of a mint for the first time in February of that year. This is strong evidence that - if they were struck in 1776 (a big IF) - the Continental Dollars had nothing whatsoever to do with Continental Congress.
That being said, the 1783 German publication that sports an engraving of a Continental Dollar, described as being "in the form of a coin" and copied from "Pennsylvania money", suggests that they existed in Europe at around the time of the Treaty of Paris.
Also, the coin donated by Sarah Sophia Banks to The British Museum was in her possession prior to 1790, the British ad offering Continental Dollars for sale at sixpence/per was published before that date, and the example that was assayed in Scotland was discovered in 1791, I believe. Only one of these coins is identifiable today, but this still means that they existed in 1790 in Great Britain.
The strongest evidence discovered so far of the use of Continental Currency pieces during the Revolutionary War come from words in a joking, contemporary poem that was written by a Tory in the U.S., who was a propaganda artist for the British. Odell's words were re-published in The Numismatist in July 2014 in an article by "Eric Newman and Maureen Levine," who I believe is married to Stuart Levine.
Regrettably, I did not read that article before I covered the pertinent auction of Newman's material in November 2014. Nevertheless, the material in the Newman/Levine article does not come close to proving that any Continental Currency pieces were minted in the U.S. during the 1770s. Odell was spreading propaganda. He was not a newspaper reporter. In that same article, citations of Paul Revere are illuminating.
The poem in question refers to "pewter dollars", and is clearly concerned with denigrating Continental Congress, and its ability to pay for anything. Pewter was a common base metal, and anyone reading the phrase "pewter dollar" would clearly understand it to represent something utterly worthless - this would have been true whether or not it referred to any sort of genuine object. The poem doesn't rise to the level of evidence for the existence of these pieces in North America in 1779.
Bill Eckberg wrote a solid piece on the subject a couple of years ago:
The only other item that I'd add to this is that since the 1950s, Elisha Gallaudet has been identified as the engraver responsible for the February, 1776 fractional notes that the Continental Dollars were based upon. I did a little bit of digging, and that attribution is based upon "E.G. FECIT" appearing on the Continental Dollar, rather than any direct evidence that Gallaudet actually engraved those bills. The fact that Gallaudet was in New York City at the time the emission was authorized by Congress (in Philadelphia) and printed by Hall & Sellers (in Philadelphia) makes this line of reasoning highly unlikely.
Consequently, any argument that the coins were struck in America that relies upon the Gallaudet attribution suffers from logical circularity.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Over the years, I have noticed that a large percentage of people have no idea of the difference between "The United States Mint" and "The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing." I offer the execrable "Who's Minding the Mint?" as Exhibit A.
I wonder if the above-mentioned reference to a "Mint in Philadelphia in 1776" was a sloppy reference to the Hall & Sellers operation?
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Over the years, I have noticed that a large percentage of people have no idea of the difference between "The United States Mint" and "The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing." I offer the execrable "Who's Minding the Mint?" as Exhibit A.
I wonder if the above-mentioned reference to a "Mint in Philadelphia in 1776" was a sloppy reference to the Hall & Sellers operation?
I had wondered precisely the same thing.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
My time machine is broken, and to fix it I need a part they stopped making in 1899...........
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.
Also: "From the London Chronicle, Dec. 21, 1776. Letters from an officer of the 64th Reg. in York Island to his friend in town. 'The Congress have established a Mint at Philadelphia, where they coin copper and silver pieces about the size of half a crown: In silver go for twelve shillings, in copper for fourteen pence."
In Don Taxay’s 1966 work on the U.S. Mint it was noted that this officer
got the size wrong; the so-called Continental dollar is about 39 or 40 mm,
much larger than a half crown at about 33 or 34 mm. The better
attribution would be to the crown of 5 shillings (about 40mm). This is
reason enough to believe that the patriots had simply started a false
rumor about coinage to irritate the British authorities in New York.
In short, the December 1776 letter published in London cannot be used
to prove anything about the “Continental dollar.”
@Denga. Good point questioning the citation. The British Crown coin had been struck sporadically to 1751, and not again until the 1810's, so the writer in 1776 would probably not be familiar with the coin. He might simply have referenced the largest coin available, the half crown.
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.
Now, which deep-pocket collector or dealer will fund Mr. Julian's research, including a visit to Britain and elsewhere to dig out the facts? Com'on lads, pony-up a bit of the spoils of flippin' and dippin'.
Now, which deep-pocket collector or dealer will fund Mr. Julian's research, including a visit to Britain and elsewhere to dig out the facts? Com'on lads, pony-up a bit of the spoils of flippin' and dippin'.
I don't know that the research requires all that much funding. Every statement just needs to be analyzed according to whether it is verifiable fact, speculation, or arrant nonsense. Then look at what the facts tell you, and analyze the speculation in the context of what was actually going on at the time.
I don't think that we'll end up knowing precisely what they are, or where they were made, but I'd be willing to bet that after the exercise, you'd be able to make a list of statements that really shouldn't be made by any self-respecting numismatist in connection with the pieces.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Regulated: Whether those proposals reached Congress or not, we can infer that as of early 1777, there was no mint, since Congress began discussing the establishment of a mint for the first time in February of that year. This is strong evidence that - if they were struck in 1776 (a big IF) - the Continental Dollars had nothing whatsoever to do with Continental Congress.
Even so, it is theoretically possible that members of the Continental Congress were involved in making patterns. Personally, I find this to be unlikely, but I would not entirely rule out the possibility. As I said above, it is not known whether such proposals ever really reached Congressmen or whether they were serious at all. Could such a proposal have been serious and have been ignored by Congressmen because the Continental Congress lacked the resources to make credible coins in adequate quantities?
Regulated: The poem in question refers to "pewter dollars", and is clearly concerned with denigrating Continental Congress, and its ability to pay for anything. Pewter was a common base metal, and anyone reading the phrase "pewter dollar" would clearly understand it to represent something utterly worthless - this would have been true whether or not it referred to any sort of genuine object. The poem doesn't rise to the level of evidence for the existence of these pieces in North America in 1779.
Regulated and I have similar views on this matter. Nevertheless, I do not find it to be a coincidence that Continental Currency pieces were struck in pewter and Odell is referring to "pewter dollars"! Odell, who was essentially a British agent, probably used rumors about coinage as a tool to attack the credibility of the Continental Congress and the whole revolutionary cause. He could also have been ordered to spread false, negative and misleading rumors about the Continental Congress and the American Revolution in general. There were many residents of the original thirteen States who were undecided as to whether to support the rebellion or the British.
Regulated: That being said, the 1783 German publication that sports an engraving of a Continental Dollar, described as being "in the form of a coin" and copied from "Pennsylvania money", suggests that they existed in Europe at around the time of the Treaty of Paris.
Not really, the small amount of space devoted to Continental Currency pieces was at the end of a popular and casual book, really an after-thought. This book was not taken all that seriously. I would not assume that the editors devoted resources to fact-checking. The editors of this German publication could have had access to illustrations and rumors rather than actual pieces of metal.
Even if they did have a piece of metal in their possession, we do not know the source of it.
Regulated: Also: "From the London Chronicle, Dec. 21, 1776. Letters from an officer of the 64th Reg. in York Island to his friend in town. 'The Congress have established a Mint at Philadelphia, where they coin copper and silver pieces about the size of half a crown: In silver go for twelve shillings, in copper for fourteen pence."
CaptainHenway: I wonder if the above-mentioned reference to a "Mint in Philadelphia in 1776" was a sloppy reference to the Hall & Sellers operation?>/q>
I believe that someone floated a Continental Currency coinage proposal and/or spread rumors about a proposal, even if a proposal had not been seriously put forth. It could also be true that the floating of a proposal unintentionally lead to rumors that coins were being made or would be produced.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
If one takes the approach "we don't know what we don't know" then we must investigate "that which we think we know." Thus, research into the subject is of trivial cost only if we are satisfied with trivial results. Send Mr. Julian to Britain to comb the Museums and multiple archives - the answers will be enlightening wherever they might be. This cannot be done from behind a desk.
As to the immediate above: the currency pieces don't float and neither does rampant speculation.
Roger: As to the immediate above: the currency pieces don't float and neither does rampant speculation.
In academics, there is a clear distinction between putting forth a hypothesis and engaging in speculation. Back in 2014, I was the one who pointed out that many of these pieces may not have been made in the 1770s and there is no evidence that any were minted in Philadelphia. I addressed flaws in the Gallaudet theory. Without knowing anything about Sarah Banks or Eagleton's article that was published in England, I hypothesized about motives people had to make Continental Currency pieces elsewhere and sell them.
Was I entirely correct, of course I was not! I am proud that I played a role in encouraging interested numismatists, including the brilliant researchers who have contributed to this thread, into critically examining the flawed paradigm regarding these pieces. We need to move towards a new paradigm.
Before focusing on a hypothesis, it makes sense to think through various plausible scenarios, while analyzing evidence that is available. I hope that we are doing so in this thread.
The phrase 'floating a proposal' is meaningful enough. Let us consider the relevant references in the 1770s or early 1780s: the listing in a widely read chemistry textbook, the pictures in a popular book in Germany, the blurbs in newspapers, the remarks in Odell's poem, and comments attributed to Paul Revere in the Newman+Levine article in The Numismatist in July 2014. Any one of these items has little meaning on its own. Taken together, it is fair to conclude that someone put forth a proposal for Continental Currency coinage. It is unclear as to whether the proposal was serious, intended to mislead consumers, or part of some political ploy. It is likely that such a proposal would have been accompanied by illustrations.
Insightful10@gmail.com
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Denga: In Don Taxay’s 1966 work on the U.S. Mint it was noted that this officer got the size wrong; the so-called Continental dollar is about 39 or 40 mm, much larger than a half crown at about 33 or 34 mm. The better attribution would be to the crown of 5 shillings (about 40mm).
I have corresponded about this very point with a leading collector. In the registry ATS, he refers to himself as "RobLou270." He has granted permission for me to refer to him by that name in this forum and to here quote his private correspondence with me. According to RobLou, Denga's remarks about the diameters are not entirely accurate. Admittedly, I have not measured any of these pieces myself. Have any members of this forum?
RobLou: The diameters of the brass Continentaly Currency pieces are between 36.9 to 37.8 mm which make them approximately 2-3 mm smaller than the silver or pewter Continental [Currency pieces] or closer in size to that of a [British] half crown at 35mm.
RobLou's overall point is that the silver/pewter Continental Currency pieces are of a denomination that is twice the denomination of the copper/brass Continental Currency pieces. If so, it follows that the larger denomination was one dollar and the smaller, one half-dollar.
In RobLou's view, it is understandable that someone at the time would interpret these as being crowns and half-crowns, respectively. Eight Reales coins of the Spanish Empire and Silver Crowns of Great Britain are both in the same family as the Talers of German speaking societies, a set of coins, which were monetary units of the world for centuries. Invariably, among the silver crowns of the world, there were differences in weights, fineness and diameters, as market values and political conditions kept changing. Nonetheless, the meaning of such coins was fairly clear.
Is it plausible that such coins were really made in Philadelphia during the 1770s? Are we talking about patterns for silver coins or an odd idea that silver crowns need not contain silver? RobLou believes that at least some of these are true coins and he has spent a lot of money acquiring them. Presumably, he believes others are legitimate patterns made in the U.S. While I currently disagree, I respect his viewpoint.
Denga: This is reason enough to believe that the patriots had simply started a false rumor about coinage to irritate the British authorities in New York/
I do not believe that "the patriots" started the rumors for political reasons. My best guess is that whoever started the rumors was thinking more along the lines of Odell; to negatively impact the credibility of the Continental Congress, draw attention to the lack of precious metals available to the American authorities and draw public attention to a seemingly desperate idea to make coins of silver denominations without silver.
Insightful10@gmail.com
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Now, which deep-pocket collector or dealer will fund Mr. Julian's research, including a visit to Britain and elsewhere to dig out the facts? Com'on lads, pony-up a bit of the spoils of flippin' and dippin'.
Many organizations outside of numismatics have funds to sponsor research. It might be interesting if the ANA, ANS or other membership based organization offered research grants.
I might just suck it up and go do the digging myself.
I've been reviewing US catalogues from the 1860s and 1870s - Continental Dollars turn up infrequently (even when compared with much rarer Early American stuff) and the only sale with a substantial number of them (8 pieces and a Betts-614) is the 1871 Strobridge/Woodward sale of Charles Clay's holdings. Clay was a prominent physician who, of course, lived in Great Britain.
Also just found: the first US appearance of a Brass Continental Dollar in Woodward's 1864 Levick Sale, which describes the coin thus:
"This piece has long been known in England, and has always been considered unique, and no doubt is so, being entirely unknown in American collections..."
I think there are three Newman 1-A strikings known in brass (the only one with a pedigree prior to the '20s goes back to - you guessed it - London in 1910). There are about a dozen Newman 1-B strikings, none of which is pedigreed into the 1800s, although the piece mentioned above is presumably one of these, as it was catalogued as "extremely fine" and the only Newman 1-A that would likely be described that way is the piece sold in London in 1910.
Of the four known silver examples, two go back to Great Britain, I'm trying to Figure out where H.O. Granberg got his, and the earliest record that we have of the Romano piece is in the 1980s.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
The English pedigrees are significant. Did Lord St. Oswald have any?
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.
@CaptHenway said:
The English pedigrees are significant. Did Lord St. Oswald have any?
I'm not sure about that yet, but it's an interesting question. I did see that the U.S. Mint Cabinet didn't buy theirs until June 27th, 1898, when they bought a pair for $27.50 - I think by 1914, they had three in total. The records from the 1840s show none, but they already had plenty of Mass Silver, the Brasher Doubloon that came in in 1838, a bunch of Washington pieces, State Coppers, Carolina Elephants, etc. etc.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@CaptHenway said:
The English pedigrees are significant. Did Lord St. Oswald have any?
I'm not sure about that yet, but it's an interesting question. I did see that the U.S. Mint Cabinet didn't buy theirs until June 27th, 1898, when they bought a pair for $27.50 - I think by 1914, they had three in total. The records from the 1840s show none, but they already had plenty of Mass Silver, the Brasher Doubloon that came in in 1838, a bunch of Washington pieces, State Coppers, Carolina Elephants, etc. etc.
That is interesting. Of course, the pewter ones would not have come in with deposits even if they had once circulated in this country, and they are not Washingtonia that the Mint might have pursued.
Are there any notes about the purchase of the pair? Who from, how described, etc.
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.
Regulated: I've been reviewing US catalogues from the 1860s and 1870s.
A clue can be found right here on the web site of our host. PCGS has republished an important document, by George Jones in 1860. It is referred to as The Earliest Known Pricelist for U.S. Coins, not a title that I would have assigned. In any event, Jones compiled prices realized from a few auctions that were conducted in the U.S. during the 1850s.
Regarding "1776 ... Pewter Money - Obv. Continental currency, 13 rings," Jones reported in 1860 that a piece sold in New York for $4.50 in 1859. One with "curency" mis-spelled brought $3.50, according to Jones, presumably in the same sale.
Yes, Regulated's main point is that they tended to travel to the U.S. from Great Britain in later eras. This is true, however, of many pre-1800 American numismatic items. There are Higley Coppers in the British museum. People in England liked to collect numismatic items relating to British colonies and to the U.S., including many items of unknown or questionable origins.
If Continental Currency pieces really were made in GB to be sold as souvenirs and for no other reason, numismatists would have been familiar with such a program in England long before Catherine Eagleton engaged in research. Indeed, this would have been known a long time ago. There have been many avid numismatists in England since the early 1700s. There have been numismatic publications in GB for centuries. There must be far more to the story, in my view.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Are there any notes about the purchase of the pair? Who from, how described, etc.
June 27
Continental Currency 1776
Dollar (Pewter) $14.00
Continental Currency 1776
Dollar (Pewter) E.G. FECIT $13.50
Not as enlightening as I'd have hoped.
As Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating!"
Edited to add: At least we know they considered them to be "Dollars." Are they identifiable in the National Numismatic Collection?
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.
Edited to add: At least we know they considered them to be "Dollars." Are they identifiable in the National Numismatic Collection?
I believe that there are only two or three from the Mint Cabinet in the NNC, so they may very well be identifiable.
By the 1880s, they seem to be called Continental Dollars, but both Dickeson and Crosby refer to them as "Continental Currency". Dickeson did not identify the issue with the dollar at all, and writes:
"With all our admiration for the coin or medal, we have not been able to determine that it was designed for, or that it became to any great extent, a currency. As it made its appearance only in white metal, the idea is strengthened thereby that it was in reality a medal, struck to commemorate the bold, fearless, and patriotic acts of the Congress that declared our country a free and independent nation."
Crosby only identifies the Parmelee specimen (at the time, the only known silver strike) as having, "probably done service as a dollar, as it bears evidence of considerable wear from circulation." He otherwise does not comment on purpose of the pieces.
The Chapmans identify one of the silver pieces as "ONE OF THE FIRST COINS OF THE UNITED STATES" in McCoye in 1887 - it would be interesting to see if this is the first such description.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
1823-Rhode Island newspaper described a Pewter Continental currency piece in detail...
stated they are becoming exceedingly scarce...only found in the cabinets of the curious...
Comments
Zoins: <<Thanks for the link to the article. Is the name of the professor mentioned in the following line known? It is interesting if the first verified reference to the coin occurred in England.>>
Yes, Newman's article in 1959 cites him. Richard Watson was a famous intellectual in the late 1700s. He held an important position at Cambridge University in England. The Wikipedia notes that " in 1764 Watson was unanimously elected professor of chemistry" despite his own declaration that "he knew nothing of chemistry, ‘had never read a syllable on the subject, nor seen a single experiment ..."!
Catherine Eagleton in the Numismatic Chronicle (as cited in the E-sylum, hopefully fairly): <<It might equally be a case of the die--sinker copying the design from the paper money faithfully in all details, including its errors, and also reproducing the signature of the engraver responsible for the printing plates from which the paper money had been made.” (page 298)>>
David Fanning (in the e-sylum: <<In fact, only the metallic dollar is so signed: the paper money is not. This is a fairly serious lapse.>>
This is not "serious lapse." Although she may be incorrect about some details, Eagleton's reasoning in this passage is sound. Elisha Gallaudet was a very well known engraver in North America and it extremely likely that many interested people in England were aware of his work.
American and British societies have changed a great deal since the late 1700s and early 1800s. There were then a great many people who hand-engraved metal or wood objects for various purposes. Prolific and/or widely respected engravers were often widely known among others who engraved and/or forged metal items. There were many craftsmen who had the skills to copy the work of the better known and/or more talented engravers.
While I am not sure when Eagleton wrote her article, which I will read this week, I said, in an article that was published on Nov. 19, 2014
<According to Newman himself, “Since the Continental Currency [metal piece] designs are copied from the fractional paper money, it is possible that the cuts for the paper money were made by the same person who cut the dies for the” Continental Currency pewter pieces (Newman, 1959, p. 917 ...). Of course, it is possible, yet this is a shallow argument. Any talented engraver could have copied the designs from such paper money and engraved dies for fantasy pieces that masquerade as coins.>
Also, we should not assume that all the "Continental Currency" pieces that have been auctioned over the past 160 years or so are necessarily the same pieces that existed in the 1700s. During the first half of the 19th century, a firm could have made novodels to sell as souvenirs. As I said in my article, during the anniversaries of the Declaration of Independence, especially in 1801 or 1826, there would have been a market for such souvenirs, which people could have carried around and shown to their friends.
And for that matter, why would a British medal manufacturer use a double-leaf edge on a souvenir medal? I had always assumed that the double-leaf edge was meant to imitate the Spanish-American 8 Reales coins the Continental Dollar was meant to circulate alongside, but at this point I must admit I have no idea why the coins have that edge.
TD
<< <i>Also, we should not assume that all the "Continental Currency" pieces that have been auctioned over the past 160 years or so are necessarily the same pieces that existed in the 1700s. During the first half of the 19th century, a firm could have made novodels to sell as souvenirs. As I said in my article, during the anniversaries of the Declaration of Independence, especially in 1801 or 1826, there would have been a market for such souvenirs, which people could have carried around and shown to their friends. >>
This a good point. Many other colonials have had American-made fantasy pieces struck later. What is different about this type is the current lack of information which makes the investigation interesting.
<< <i>Has anybody ever tried to match the double-leaf edge to other coins, tokens or medals? Does it match any particular Spanish-American use of that design, or is it just made in close similitude to the generic double-leaf edge design?
And for that matter, why would a British medal manufacturer use a double-leaf edge on a souvenir medal? I had always assumed that the double-leaf edge was meant to imitate the Spanish-American 8 Reales coins the Continental Dollar was meant to circulate alongside, but at this point I must admit I have no idea why the coins have that edge.
TD >>
Way out of my knowledge on this one, but wouldn't that be exactly why a British manufacturer would have put the edge design on them? They and everyone in the world at that time would have known the Spanish pieces had the design and that the Spanish pieces were of the new continent. What easier short-hand way of making the Continental pieces look and feel more new world and entirely un-English than putting a distinct device associated with North (or central) America on them?
--Severian the Lame
Now that a couple of years have passed, I wonder, did any of this affect the market? Or is it foolish to think that people actually care about the history of their coins? Maybe all that really matters is that the pictures on the coins haven't changed?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This Newman 1-C sold for $164,500.00 at FUN and has a PCGS Price Guide price of $195,000 now. Is it worth more than now in Jan or was the price affected by the history?
HA: https://coins.ha.com/itm/colonials/1776-1-continental-dollar-curency-pewter-ms64-pcgs-newman-1-c-w-8445-r3/a/1251-5510.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
PCGS: http://www.pcgs.com/cert/06640314
I still love the design, but it's interesting to think about whether this is a US coin or a European medal, and whether it was issued in 1776 or struck later.
Great old thread with a lot of information.... No real conclusions though. I have always found it interesting, that on the coin, New York was spelled N Yorke... with an e at the end.... I wonder if that may be a clue we have overlooked... was it ever spelled that way in America? If so, When was the 'e' dropped? Cheers, RickO
Thanks for the bump, definitely an interesting read and topic. I'm surprised there isn't more controversy and with these pieces.
@CaptHenway asks: "Has anybody ever tried to match the double-leaf edge to other coins, tokens or medals? "
Yes, on 8 Reales. So long ago I completely forgot about it. As best I remember (PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS), the Continental Dollars did not have the double segmented edge. However, this does not make sense to me as I write this NOW so will someone correct the record (by examining the edge of one) and forgive my forgetfulness.
Ah yes, a fascinating old thread. Just yesterday I was emailing with the author of a great new upcoming article on the first coin provably struck for the United States, and the subject of the status of the Continental Dollars came up. We agreed that nothing was provable about them.
Time for another cup of coffee!
TD
The last time this thread was floating around, I did a little reading about tin in North America during the Revolutionary War. I'd wondered, since - at the time - most of it came from mines in Great Britain, how anyone in the Northeast would have enough to strike the (estimated) 6,000 pieces.
Benjamin Franklin had something interesting to say on the subject in July, 1776:
<Lancaster, July 23, 1776: ... our tinsmiths lack tin for kettles. We have collected most of the available cash from our men of substance, so that something may be advanced to soldiers who need it; and we submit to you whether money should not be sent for the purpose. Most of the militia require some small necessity, and many wish to leave a few shillings with their families; they apply to us and “expect to be here equipped and assisted and it gives us pain to see their disappointment.” Our tinsmiths report no tin to be had in Philadelphia; should there be any to spare from public stores we could continue making kettles and canteens. “We shall use our best endeavour to keep our Gunsmiths busy and do every thing in our power to execute the orders of the Convention and promote the general Interest.” Addressed to Franklin as president of the convention and signed on order of the committee by W. Atlee, Chairman.>
It's curious that, during a shortage of tin, anyone would be striking pattern coins out of that metal. Or that these pieces wouldn't have been melted down en masse for the war effort.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Great letter, but was it written by Franklin, or to Franklin?
Just to play devil's advocate, one could speculate that the shortage of tin was caused by it being bought up and used to make Continental Dollars!
TD
My bad - written to him.
I think that you could suggest that the shortage was caused by their striking, but then you would have to explain why they weren't melted, especially since so many never circulated.
With Continental Dollars, the more you look at the issue, the less you know.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
RickO has a very good point. Coupled with the misspelling of CURRENCY this indicates
that some or all of the dies were prepared abroad, probably in Germany. Spelling errors
and anachronisms (Yorke) were unlikely in this country or in Britain.
Tried looking up how late "YORKE" was an acceptable variant spelling, but could not find a thing.
Looking at the reverse above, I note that without the "E" the name of "N YORK" would have been noticeably shorter than the other states, so maybe the "E" was included for aesthetics. An old printer like Franklin might have done something like that, but who knows?
Interesting point but it seems somewhat unlikely that an obscure state spelling would be used on a coin that was supposed to build confidence and circulate in NY. If anything, an obscure spelling may be more indication that it was a medal not meant for widespread adoption.
Of note, all of the 5 paper versions by Hall & Sellers of Philadelphia on the Notre Dame page spell York correctly without a trailing E. You can see these on the Notre Dame Continental Currency page:
http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/CurrencyText/CC-02-17-76.html
Here's the half dollar for reference:
If nothing is provable about them, is it more likely they are fantasy pieces similar to say the Yocum Dollar, than an official issue, where much more information is generally available for others?
The low grade of so many Continental Dollars makes me reluctant to assign likeliness to any of the many theories as to their origin. I remain open to all and convinced of none.
As to the Yocum Dollars, I have handled two of them and would call them, from memory, in AU condition, though one of them was later heavily artificially toned in an attempt to convince me that it was a third specimen.
Regarding grades, it's also interesting to note that many of the Continental Dollars are found in very high grade which is unusual for colonial issues.
The reason the Yocum Dollars were brought up is that there is also very little information on those pieces. Official pieces like coins tend to be well documented which this one doesn't seem to be, for now.
Betts-614 is remarkably similar to the Continental Dollar (same reverse design, same diameter, same or similar edge, what looks like identical beaded borders, and I'll be damned if the the die work doesn't look like it's from the same hand), was produced as a medal, and comes circulated to heavily circulated in all of the dozen known pieces. It's also interesting that it's dated 1783, the same year that the first report of a Continental Dollar shows up in Europe. All of the Betts-614 pedigrees that I've been able run down into the 19th century end in Britain.
The obverse of the Betts-614 was also produced by someone familiar with London, or at least its landmarks (St. Paul’s, St. Mary-le-Bow, and the Monument of the Gilded Urn appear in the background of the obverse).
On a positive note, there was a discussion of a proposal for a copper coin in mid-1776 to replace worn-out/underweight coins, although it the story originates in a newspaper, not in the papers of Continental Congress (or in any known correspondence by members of that body). No reports of any actual coins are known.
Also: "From the London Chronicle, Dec. 21, 1776. Letters from an officer of the 64th Reg. in York Island to his friend in town. 'The Congress have established a Mint at Philadelphia, where they coin copper and silver pieces about the size of half a crown: In silver go for twelve shillings, in copper for fourteen pence."
Dollars had traded at 7 shillings, 6 pence in Philadelphia in the 1770s, and the known silver Continental Dollars contain about 87.5% of the silver found in a Spanish Silver Dollar, so the numbers don't really add up. Fourteen pence (over a shilling) seems like a lot for a copper coin, too.
Ever wish you had a time machine?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
"A Mint in Philadelphia???" In 1776??? What was he smoking????
It would be fascinating to sit down and catalogue the verifiable facts (from primary source materials) associated with Continental Dollars. Anyone care to try?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I agree with Tom, No way was there a mint in Philadelphia in 1776... The American Revolution was from 1775 to 1782 (some sources say 1783). No way a mint could have been established at that time. Cheers, RickO
Regulated:
Yes, there is evidence that Continental Currency coinage was proposed or at least suggested circa 1776. It is not known whether such proposals ever really reached Congressmen or whether they were serious at all. As I said above, it is not clear that the physical pieces that we now see pictured in auctions or in reference books were actually minted in the 1770s or even in the 18th century. At this point, it should not be assumed that any of the surviving pieces were minted in the 1770s, though they may have been!
The strongest evidence discovered so far of the use of Continental Currency pieces during the Revolutionary War come from words in a joking, contemporary poem that was written by a Tory in the U.S., who was a propaganda artist for the British. Odell's words were re-published in The Numismatist in July 2014 in an article by "Eric Newman and Maureen Levine," who I believe is married to Stuart Levine.
Regrettably, I did not read that article before I covered the pertinent auction of Newman's material in November 2014. Nevertheless, the material in the Newman/Levine article does not come close to proving that any Continental Currency pieces were minted in the U.S. during the 1770s. Odell was spreading propaganda. He was not a newspaper reporter. In that same article, citations of Paul Revere are illuminating.
Continental Currency pieces may have existed in the U.S. and/or Europe during the 1870s. It could also be true that all that existed then were sketches, precise drawings and/or some kind of written concepts for "Continental" pieces of this sort!
In 2014, I discussed issues relating to Contiental Currency pieces.
MidLifeCrisis cited the University of Notre Dame site in regard to coinage matters coming before the Continental Congress. Please refer to the analytical remarks in my already mentioned article in 2014. I then refer to a pertinent article that I wrote in 2013:
In March 2013, in an article on the Garrett-Perschke Quint, I pointed out that, “ On Sept. 2, 1776, a committee on gold and silver coinage provided its report to the Continental Congress. It seems that Thomas Jefferson was the leader of this committee, or the most influential member. He wrote the report, literally, in his own handwriting, and compiled a chart that was featured in the report. ... A version of this report was entered into the Journal of the Continental Congress.” I read the original text, including scans of documents written by ‘Jefferson’s hand.’
As best as I can tell, there was then no discussion of "Continental Currency" coinage or of the U.S. manufacturing her own coins of any sort in 1776 or soon afterwards.
That would be a great read.
Whether those proposals reached Congress or not, we can infer that as of early 1777, there was no mint, since Congress began discussing the establishment of a mint for the first time in February of that year. This is strong evidence that - if they were struck in 1776 (a big IF) - the Continental Dollars had nothing whatsoever to do with Continental Congress.
That being said, the 1783 German publication that sports an engraving of a Continental Dollar, described as being "in the form of a coin" and copied from "Pennsylvania money", suggests that they existed in Europe at around the time of the Treaty of Paris.
Also, the coin donated by Sarah Sophia Banks to The British Museum was in her possession prior to 1790, the British ad offering Continental Dollars for sale at sixpence/per was published before that date, and the example that was assayed in Scotland was discovered in 1791, I believe. Only one of these coins is identifiable today, but this still means that they existed in 1790 in Great Britain.
The poem in question refers to "pewter dollars", and is clearly concerned with denigrating Continental Congress, and its ability to pay for anything. Pewter was a common base metal, and anyone reading the phrase "pewter dollar" would clearly understand it to represent something utterly worthless - this would have been true whether or not it referred to any sort of genuine object. The poem doesn't rise to the level of evidence for the existence of these pieces in North America in 1779.
Bill Eckberg wrote a solid piece on the subject a couple of years ago:
http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2015/08/shady-stories-for-US-coins-add-collector-interest.all.html#
The only other item that I'd add to this is that since the 1950s, Elisha Gallaudet has been identified as the engraver responsible for the February, 1776 fractional notes that the Continental Dollars were based upon. I did a little bit of digging, and that attribution is based upon "E.G. FECIT" appearing on the Continental Dollar, rather than any direct evidence that Gallaudet actually engraved those bills. The fact that Gallaudet was in New York City at the time the emission was authorized by Congress (in Philadelphia) and printed by Hall & Sellers (in Philadelphia) makes this line of reasoning highly unlikely.
Consequently, any argument that the coins were struck in America that relies upon the Gallaudet attribution suffers from logical circularity.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Over the years, I have noticed that a large percentage of people have no idea of the difference between "The United States Mint" and "The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing." I offer the execrable "Who's Minding the Mint?" as Exhibit A.
I wonder if the above-mentioned reference to a "Mint in Philadelphia in 1776" was a sloppy reference to the Hall & Sellers operation?
I had wondered precisely the same thing.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@CaptHenway ...That is an excellent point Capt., a very logical possibility. Cheers, RickO
>
My time machine is broken, and to fix it I need a part they stopped making in 1899...........
In Don Taxay’s 1966 work on the U.S. Mint it was noted that this officer
got the size wrong; the so-called Continental dollar is about 39 or 40 mm,
much larger than a half crown at about 33 or 34 mm. The better
attribution would be to the crown of 5 shillings (about 40mm). This is
reason enough to believe that the patriots had simply started a false
rumor about coinage to irritate the British authorities in New York.
In short, the December 1776 letter published in London cannot be used
to prove anything about the “Continental dollar.”
@Denga. Good point questioning the citation. The British Crown coin had been struck sporadically to 1751, and not again until the 1810's, so the writer in 1776 would probably not be familiar with the coin. He might simply have referenced the largest coin available, the half crown.
Interesting!
Now, which deep-pocket collector or dealer will fund Mr. Julian's research, including a visit to Britain and elsewhere to dig out the facts? Com'on lads, pony-up a bit of the spoils of flippin' and dippin'.
I don't know that the research requires all that much funding. Every statement just needs to be analyzed according to whether it is verifiable fact, speculation, or arrant nonsense. Then look at what the facts tell you, and analyze the speculation in the context of what was actually going on at the time.
I don't think that we'll end up knowing precisely what they are, or where they were made, but I'd be willing to bet that after the exercise, you'd be able to make a list of statements that really shouldn't be made by any self-respecting numismatist in connection with the pieces.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Regulated:
Even so, it is theoretically possible that members of the Continental Congress were involved in making patterns. Personally, I find this to be unlikely, but I would not entirely rule out the possibility. As I said above, it is not known whether such proposals ever really reached Congressmen or whether they were serious at all. Could such a proposal have been serious and have been ignored by Congressmen because the Continental Congress lacked the resources to make credible coins in adequate quantities?
In 2014, I discussed issues relating to Contiental Currency pieces.
Regulated:
Regulated and I have similar views on this matter. Nevertheless, I do not find it to be a coincidence that Continental Currency pieces were struck in pewter and Odell is referring to "pewter dollars"! Odell, who was essentially a British agent, probably used rumors about coinage as a tool to attack the credibility of the Continental Congress and the whole revolutionary cause. He could also have been ordered to spread false, negative and misleading rumors about the Continental Congress and the American Revolution in general. There were many residents of the original thirteen States who were undecided as to whether to support the rebellion or the British.
Regulated:
Not really, the small amount of space devoted to Continental Currency pieces was at the end of a popular and casual book, really an after-thought. This book was not taken all that seriously. I would not assume that the editors devoted resources to fact-checking. The editors of this German publication could have had access to illustrations and rumors rather than actual pieces of metal.
Even if they did have a piece of metal in their possession, we do not know the source of it.
Regulated:
CaptainHenway:
I believe that someone floated a Continental Currency coinage proposal and/or spread rumors about a proposal, even if a proposal had not been seriously put forth. It could also be true that the floating of a proposal unintentionally lead to rumors that coins were being made or would be produced.
If one takes the approach "we don't know what we don't know" then we must investigate "that which we think we know." Thus, research into the subject is of trivial cost only if we are satisfied with trivial results. Send Mr. Julian to Britain to comb the Museums and multiple archives - the answers will be enlightening wherever they might be. This cannot be done from behind a desk.
As to the immediate above: the currency pieces don't float and neither does rampant speculation.
Roger:
In academics, there is a clear distinction between putting forth a hypothesis and engaging in speculation. Back in 2014, I was the one who pointed out that many of these pieces may not have been made in the 1770s and there is no evidence that any were minted in Philadelphia. I addressed flaws in the Gallaudet theory. Without knowing anything about Sarah Banks or Eagleton's article that was published in England, I hypothesized about motives people had to make Continental Currency pieces elsewhere and sell them.
Was I entirely correct, of course I was not! I am proud that I played a role in encouraging interested numismatists, including the brilliant researchers who have contributed to this thread, into critically examining the flawed paradigm regarding these pieces. We need to move towards a new paradigm.
Before focusing on a hypothesis, it makes sense to think through various plausible scenarios, while analyzing evidence that is available. I hope that we are doing so in this thread.
In 2014, I discussed issues relating to Continental Currency pieces.
The phrase 'floating a proposal' is meaningful enough. Let us consider the relevant references in the 1770s or early 1780s: the listing in a widely read chemistry textbook, the pictures in a popular book in Germany, the blurbs in newspapers, the remarks in Odell's poem, and comments attributed to Paul Revere in the Newman+Levine article in The Numismatist in July 2014. Any one of these items has little meaning on its own. Taken together, it is fair to conclude that someone put forth a proposal for Continental Currency coinage. It is unclear as to whether the proposal was serious, intended to mislead consumers, or part of some political ploy. It is likely that such a proposal would have been accompanied by illustrations.
Insightful10@gmail.com
Denga:
I have corresponded about this very point with a leading collector. In the registry ATS, he refers to himself as "RobLou270." He has granted permission for me to refer to him by that name in this forum and to here quote his private correspondence with me. According to RobLou, Denga's remarks about the diameters are not entirely accurate. Admittedly, I have not measured any of these pieces myself. Have any members of this forum?
RobLou: The diameters of the brass Continentaly Currency pieces
RobLou's overall point is that the silver/pewter Continental Currency pieces are of a denomination that is twice the denomination of the copper/brass Continental Currency pieces. If so, it follows that the larger denomination was one dollar and the smaller, one half-dollar.
In RobLou's view, it is understandable that someone at the time would interpret these as being crowns and half-crowns, respectively. Eight Reales coins of the Spanish Empire and Silver Crowns of Great Britain are both in the same family as the Talers of German speaking societies, a set of coins, which were monetary units of the world for centuries. Invariably, among the silver crowns of the world, there were differences in weights, fineness and diameters, as market values and political conditions kept changing. Nonetheless, the meaning of such coins was fairly clear.
Is it plausible that such coins were really made in Philadelphia during the 1770s? Are we talking about patterns for silver coins or an odd idea that silver crowns need not contain silver? RobLou believes that at least some of these are true coins and he has spent a lot of money acquiring them. Presumably, he believes others are legitimate patterns made in the U.S. While I currently disagree, I respect his viewpoint.
Denga:
I do not believe that "the patriots" started the rumors for political reasons. My best guess is that whoever started the rumors was thinking more along the lines of Odell; to negatively impact the credibility of the Continental Congress, draw attention to the lack of precious metals available to the American authorities and draw public attention to a seemingly desperate idea to make coins of silver denominations without silver.
Insightful10@gmail.com
Many organizations outside of numismatics have funds to sponsor research. It might be interesting if the ANA, ANS or other membership based organization offered research grants.
An example of an organization that issues grants is the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association which commissioned an award medal from Christian Gobrecht in the 1800s.
An organization that could possibly fund this may be the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Foundation which funds grants for "Youth and Education".
Central States has a grant program but it's only $5,000 dolled out in quarterly snippets.
I'm suggesting some of the people making a lot of money off coins, put some of it back into fundamental research.
I might just suck it up and go do the digging myself.
I've been reviewing US catalogues from the 1860s and 1870s - Continental Dollars turn up infrequently (even when compared with much rarer Early American stuff) and the only sale with a substantial number of them (8 pieces and a Betts-614) is the 1871 Strobridge/Woodward sale of Charles Clay's holdings. Clay was a prominent physician who, of course, lived in Great Britain.
Also just found: the first US appearance of a Brass Continental Dollar in Woodward's 1864 Levick Sale, which describes the coin thus:
"This piece has long been known in England, and has always been considered unique, and no doubt is so, being entirely unknown in American collections..."
I think there are three Newman 1-A strikings known in brass (the only one with a pedigree prior to the '20s goes back to - you guessed it - London in 1910). There are about a dozen Newman 1-B strikings, none of which is pedigreed into the 1800s, although the piece mentioned above is presumably one of these, as it was catalogued as "extremely fine" and the only Newman 1-A that would likely be described that way is the piece sold in London in 1910.
Of the four known silver examples, two go back to Great Britain, I'm trying to Figure out where H.O. Granberg got his, and the earliest record that we have of the Romano piece is in the 1980s.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
The English pedigrees are significant. Did Lord St. Oswald have any?
I'm not sure about that yet, but it's an interesting question. I did see that the U.S. Mint Cabinet didn't buy theirs until June 27th, 1898, when they bought a pair for $27.50 - I think by 1914, they had three in total. The records from the 1840s show none, but they already had plenty of Mass Silver, the Brasher Doubloon that came in in 1838, a bunch of Washington pieces, State Coppers, Carolina Elephants, etc. etc.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Just checked - the Lord Saint Oswald coins did not include a Continental Dollar (possibly because he actually got his US coins in the US?)...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
That is interesting. Of course, the pewter ones would not have come in with deposits even if they had once circulated in this country, and they are not Washingtonia that the Mint might have pursued.
Are there any notes about the purchase of the pair? Who from, how described, etc.
June 27 Continental Currency 1776 Dollar (Pewter) $14.00 Continental Currency 1776 Dollar (Pewter) E.G. FECIT $13.50Not as enlightening as I'd have hoped.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Regulated:
A clue can be found right here on the web site of our host. PCGS has republished an important document, by George Jones in 1860. It is referred to as The Earliest Known Pricelist for U.S. Coins, not a title that I would have assigned. In any event, Jones compiled prices realized from a few auctions that were conducted in the U.S. during the 1850s.
Regarding "1776 ... Pewter Money - Obv. Continental currency, 13 rings," Jones reported in 1860 that a piece sold in New York for $4.50 in 1859. One with "curency" mis-spelled brought $3.50, according to Jones, presumably in the same sale.
The relatively late appearance of most of the known pieces is not really a surprise. In 2014, I said, ... dies that were made before 1786 could have been used at later times by unknown individuals for their own reasons, which might have been legitimate, like, possibly, producing souvenirs in 1801 on the 25th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, or in 1826 on the 50th anniversary. Certainly, some could have been made later than 1826. As the dies were made privately (or by British intelligence), they could have been used by whoever had physical possession of them at later times.
Yes, Regulated's main point is that they tended to travel to the U.S. from Great Britain in later eras. This is true, however, of many pre-1800 American numismatic items. There are Higley Coppers in the British museum. People in England liked to collect numismatic items relating to British colonies and to the U.S., including many items of unknown or questionable origins.
If Continental Currency pieces really were made in GB to be sold as souvenirs and for no other reason, numismatists would have been familiar with such a program in England long before Catherine Eagleton engaged in research. Indeed, this would have been known a long time ago. There have been many avid numismatists in England since the early 1700s. There have been numismatic publications in GB for centuries. There must be far more to the story, in my view.
As Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating!"
Edited to add: At least we know they considered them to be "Dollars." Are they identifiable in the National Numismatic Collection?
I believe that there are only two or three from the Mint Cabinet in the NNC, so they may very well be identifiable.
By the 1880s, they seem to be called Continental Dollars, but both Dickeson and Crosby refer to them as "Continental Currency". Dickeson did not identify the issue with the dollar at all, and writes:
"With all our admiration for the coin or medal, we have not been able to determine that it was designed for, or that it became to any great extent, a currency. As it made its appearance only in white metal, the idea is strengthened thereby that it was in reality a medal, struck to commemorate the bold, fearless, and patriotic acts of the Congress that declared our country a free and independent nation."
Crosby only identifies the Parmelee specimen (at the time, the only known silver strike) as having, "probably done service as a dollar, as it bears evidence of considerable wear from circulation." He otherwise does not comment on purpose of the pieces.
The Chapmans identify one of the silver pieces as "ONE OF THE FIRST COINS OF THE UNITED STATES" in McCoye in 1887 - it would be interesting to see if this is the first such description.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
1823-Rhode Island newspaper described a Pewter Continental currency piece in detail...
stated they are becoming exceedingly scarce...only found in the cabinets of the curious...