What is the back story for why there is no 1795 Dime?

planonit

It says it all right there. Why did the US wait till 1796 to produce a dime?

wooglout

I think part of the problem, initially at least, was the lack of depositors. IIRC, those in a position to deposit at the Mint for coining would rather hold the coinage they already had as it was functional, albeit foreign. The first forays into coinage almost had to be pushed through by those in power to do so. The anecdotal story of Founding Father's silver being used for the first half dismes comes to mind. The first cents and half cents copper was provided for by the associated laws of 1792, allowing many tons to be purchased. I think these were deemed more important for daily commerce and thus needing to be produced before said dimes.

Perhaps another way to look at it was the Mint faced an uphill battle in not just establishing our new coinage but attempting to supplant, or at least circulate alongside, other coinage that was still used many decades after the 1790s. Not many know this, but there were many times the United States Mint almost folded. So back to the dimes, it really was a shaky start to the coinage and dimes/quarters/etc did not appear until 1796 for many reasons beyond what I've recalled above. I know there are more here with greater knowledge on the subject, so perhaps they will correct my assumptions/educated guesses with something more direct.

giorgio11

Another thing to remember is that the decimal-system currency was a new and daring experiment at the time. Nearly every other nation except Russia (which also used a decimal system of 100 kopecks to the ruble as early as 1710) was accustomed to variants on either the Spanish American system or the Carolingian system of pounds (livres-240 silver pennies), shillings, and pence. The United States' decimalization of its currency—and its eventual refusal to portray President Washington thereon—was yet another way that the enterprising young nation could assert its sovereign right to mint coinage, yet distinguish itself from the nondecimal crowns, sovereigns, and portrait-bearing coinage of its British ancestors. A "disme/dime" was an entirely new concept to Americans of the late 18th century.

Best Regards,

George

BillJones

During the 18th and for a good portion of the 19th century, the gold and silver that went into our coinage came from private banks and businesses. The mint did not buy gold and silver and coin it on its own account.

The people who deposited gold and silver had the option to choose what denominations they wanted. For the silver coins, the most demanded denomination was the dollar followed by the half dollar. These merchants did not want the smaller coins for the most part. Therefore dollar mintages were high.

Half dollars were a second choice if the dollar was not available. For example the 1795 half dollar is a common coin, by the standards of the 1790s, because the mint could not make silver dollars during the first six months of the year. The mint was waiting for a larger coin press to arrive that could make dollars. They had tried to make dollars in 1794, and the vast majority of those coins had been poorly struck because they had tried to use the cent press to make them.

Why were there half dimes and not dimes? The half dimes were used to settle the accounts with the depositors. When they deposited silver, it was not in even dollar amounts, and the mint had to "make change." Since the half dime was the smallest silver denomination, it was the best suited coin to do that purpose.

In 1796 the mint made a huge effort to produce every denomination that was on the books. It would be the only year in which all 10 coins that were authorized by the Coinage Act of 1792 would be produced during the history of the first Philadelphia Mint. That accounts for why the dime was introduced that year.

oih82w8

I can agree with the lack of depositors as well. The shortfall of funding may have caused the suspension of minting coinage of the Dime (disme) denomination and possibly to see if the denomination was needed in commerce. I have been wrong before.

CaptHenway

<< <i>During the 18th and for a good portion of the 19th century, the gold and silver that went into our coinage came from private banks and businesses. The mint did not buy gold and silver and coin it on its own account.

The people who deposited gold and silver had the option to choose what denominations they wanted. For the silver coins, the most demanded denomination was the dollar followed by the half dollar. These merchants did not want the smaller coins for the most part. Therefore dollar mintages were high.

Half dollars were a second choice if the dollar was not available. For example the 1795 half dollar is a common coin, by the standards of the 1790s, because the mint could not make silver dollars during the first six months of the year. The mint was waiting for a larger coin press to arrive that could make dollars. They had tried to make dollars in 1794, and the vast majority of those coins had been poorly struck because they had tried to use the cent press to make them.

Why were there half dimes and not dimes? The half dimes were used to settle the accounts with the depositors. When they deposited silver, it was not in even dollar amounts, and the mint had to "make change." Since the half dime was the smallest silver denomination, it was the best suited coin to do that purpose.

In 1796 the mint made a huge effort to produce every denomination that was on the books. It would be the only year in which all 10 coins that were authorized by the Coinage Act of 1792 would be produced during the history of the first Philadelphia Mint. That accounts for why the dime was introduced that year. >>



Good explanation.

As to why the Mint made every denomination in 1796, I have speculated that this was because 1796 was the last full year of George Washington's Presidency, and they may have to show what they could do before he left office. However, as I say, this is pure speculation on my part.

TD

Coinosaurus

<< <i>
As to why the Mint made every denomination in 1796, I have speculated that this was because 1796 was the last full year of George Washington's Presidency, and they may have to show what they could do before he left office. However, as I say, this is pure speculation on my part.
>>



We know for a fact that de Saussure took it as a point of pride to get the first gold struck before he left as Mint Director (1795). It's not that far a leap to assume the Mint wanted to get everything else done before Washington left office.

JJSingleton

Good stuff here. I like BillJones take on subject. And the Capt's speculation is quite logical.

wooglout

Thanks Bill Jones - I knew it was a function of the depositors and you nailed it. Thanks for the clarification on my late night ramblings

denga

The answers given are well thought out but there was an entirely different aspect not yet mentioned.
Prior to October 1795 the Mint had used a standard of .900 fine silver for the coinage although the
law stated that .8924 was the legal requirement. The net effect was to cheat depositors out of about
1 percent of their money. When this became generally known, deposits fell off drastically and were to
do so throughout 1796 and 1797. Mint Director Elias Boudinot, who took office at the end of October
1795, was thus faced with a difficult situation. Most depositors wanted silver dollars and, if their wishes
had been carried out, the silver on hand would have become exhausted rather quickly and skilled
workers would have to be laid off. Boudinot clearly did not wish to do this. He knew that deposits would
eventually get better but new workers would then have to be trained.

The solution was to strike small silver and gold coins. A dime, for example, takes just as much labor as a
dollar but the same amount of silver goes much further and requires far more work. Boudinot twisted arms,
especially at the Bank of the United States, to get the smaller gold and silver coins accepted. The Bank of
the U.S. arrangement was not as difficult as it might seem because Boudinot was a director of the Bank.

It is worth mentioning that Boudinot also put his own funds to work. Between 1798 and 1803 he deposited
nearly $170,000 is silver bullion in an effort to keep the Mint open and skilled workers on hand.

CaptHenway

Excellent points!

dynamic

Agree with Bill J & Capt. on why 1796 IMHO.
And 2 half dimes could be done for 10 cents for more flexibility than if dimes were done, just speculation on my part as to why half dimes and not dimes.
(if limited material to work with, could have done fewer half dimes and allow for some dimes, but this work have taken more work & cost)
Many factors in a new nation could have come into play.

CaptHenway

Even though the Half Dime is proportionately just as much less that the Half Real in circulation at 6-1/4 cents as the Dime was to the One Real in circulation at 12-1/2 cents, I wonder if it was easier to get somebody to accept a Half Dime in lieu of a Half Real than it would be to get them to accept a Dime in lieu of a One Real?

2-1/2 cents here and 2-1/2 cents there, and pretty soon you're talking Real Money!

lordmarcovan

Hey, it seems we have an erudite and knowledgeable newb in our midst.

to wooglout!

BillJones

Another aspect of the 1795 puzzle could have been the time involved to make dies. Mint engraver, Robert Scot, had come up with designs and produce most of the dies that were used to make coins in 1795. Scot may have gotten some help from John Smith Gardener, but most of the responsibility fell on Scot's shoulders. Gardener, who was hired to do some die work for the mint, thought that he was underpaid, and it appears that he was not happy during his employment time at the mint. That may have even made Scot's job harder.

Congress was breathing down the mint personnel's neck in 1795. The lawmakers were not happy with the fact that the mint had issued very few silver coins and no gold pieces by the end of 1794. They were also not happy with the designs that had appeared on most of the coins the mint had issued in 1793 and '94.

Scot's die making job was on two levels or steps. The first level was to make the hubs for the busts of Ms. Liberty, the eagles and probably the basic parts of the wreath that appeared on the reverse of the copper coins. This was a time consuming and exacting job. The hubs for each denomination had be made by hand. There was no reducing machine that could have been used to make the hubs in the various sizes.

Once that was done the next step was to make the dies. That involved sinking the central design devices on the die faces. Then the stars, lettering and numbers were entered with individual punches. Throughout this process the dies had to be softened and hardened by heating an quenching them in water or oil. Given the variable quality of the steel that was available to make the dies, some dies didn't last long once they were put in service, and a few probably broke before they even made it to the presses.

Problems with the rollers, which flattened out the ingots from which the coins were made, prompted the mint to suspend cent and half cent production for most of the year until October.
Given his priorities in 1795, Scot needed to make dies for half dollars, dollars (both sides were redesigned in 1795), half eagles ($5) and eagles ($10). The last three coins all required new hubs.

Scott or Gardener also made new hubs and dies for the half cents and cents. Many of these 1795 dated dies were used in 1796. It is interesting to note that all of the plain edge 1795 dated half cents were made in 1796. The dies were there and the mint used them despite the change in the year. At the end of year a few 1796 dated half cents were made, but their limited production translates to major rarities today.

What I'm getting at here is that Robert Scot probably did not have the time to make dies for dimes, quarters and quarter eagles in 1795. These coins were not on the priority list. The other denominations were.