A few early US mintage figures - scan of letter added as requested.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Excerpt from an interesting letter from Robert Patterson to a Boston coin collector.
“Mint of the United States
Philadelphia, Pa.
August 15, 1838
In reply to your questions, I have to state that the first coinage at this Mint was made in 1792, and consisted of about 1,500 half-dimes; no other coins having been struck in that year. In 1793 there was no coinage except of cents and half-cents, which were also coined in ’94 and ’95. In 1794, in addition to the copper coinage there were struck 5,300 half-dollars and 1,758 dollars. These dollars are now very scarce – we have but one specimen, and that is worn. In 1795, dollars, half-dollars and half-dimes were coined; and in that year the first gold coinage was made, consisting of 2,795 eagles, and 8,707 half-eagles.”
Comments
No mention that some of the half dimes struck in 1795 were dated 1794.
The mint archives must be tedious to search, and at the same time extremely interesting when certain 'gems' of information turn up......Cheers, RickO
The writer clearly considers the 1792 half dimes to be regular issues coins. I have long believed that to be the case and believe the catalogs should list them as such.
Patterson described 5,300 half dollars in 1794, which is the quantity delivered on December 1st of that year. Earlier Redbooks show 5,300 as the mintage, and later ones (don't know the year of change) show a 23,464 mintage for 1794. Most authors assume the February 4th, 1795 delivery of 18,164 half dollars were dated 1794, based on surviving quantities of 1794. The exact number of 1794 dated half dollars minted will never be accurately known.
This letter, and others in response to collector questions of the time, indicate that the US Mint never had reliable quantities by date and denomination. That makes sense given contemporary circumstances: all that mattered was what came in and what came out by deliveries and value.
"Orosz" aka "Joel J. Orosz, PhD."
Here's the relevant sheet. It has been reduced in scale to fit the message board (original is 3,000x4,000 dpi). It is actually page 2 of the document. The first page is just the address, etc. The full document is 4 pages and would take a lot of forum space for little benefit.
PS: Mr. Sparks and Mr. Stearns were both active coin collectors in Boston in the 1830s-1840s.
Wow!!!
In his 1860 book The Mint Manual of Coins of All Nations US Mint Director James Ross Snowden quoted President Washington in his 1792 address to Congress "There has also been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes; the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them." Snowden then states ""Between this time and the close of the year 1792, several other pieces made their appearance from the Mint, all of which will be noted under the head of "pattern pieces," at the close of this article. The first regular return of coins from the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint took place on the 1st of March , 1793, and consisted of eleven thousand one hundred and seventy eight cents.""
Snowden later states ""We consider, however, that the piece in question [1792 half dismes] was intended for "general circulation," from the fact that Washington makes mention of it, in that light, in his annual address to Congress, (before quoted). But as it partakes of the experiment character, we exclude it from the regular series.""
Numismatists can debate what 1792 half dismes should be called, however in 1860 Mint Director Snowden designated them patterns. I don't know if this designation was superseded by any subsequent Mint director.
Thx to RWB for sharing this - it demonstrates that there were indeed a few collectors in the early days.
This letter is further discussed in the forthcoming book 1792: BIrth of a Nation's Coinage. There is also a followup letter in which the writer asks Patterson to describe the devices on the half disme, suggesting that he had not actually seen an example.
By the way, the book is now with the indexer.
I am pretty sure this letter was written the younger Patterson who was the son of the one who was Mint director from July 1805 to July 1824 (the elder Patterson died in 1824 as well). Robert Maskell Patterson was Mint director after his brother in law Samuel Moore, from May 1835 to July 1851. It is doubtful that he had the same first hand knowledge about the 1792 half dismes or as to what their supposed status was, as he was only five years old when they were struck.
As I recall (will have to look at my files to be 100% positive), all of the tables and abstracts that were made by the Mint and were copied into the bullion and waste journals that are still located in the national Archives, do not list any silver coinage for 1792. Also, tables included in several annual Mint reports only list silver coinage struck starting in 1794.
It seems that as far as the Mint itself was concerned, those coins were not officially struck by the Mint. The reason is quite simple...the Mint was not finished being built and coin production was not actually started there until 1793.
This not to say that work on several aspects of the 1792 coinage was not done in 1792 and on the Mint property. it just means that they were not "official" coins produced by the Mint. Mostly this was due to the fact that the proper Mint employees could not legally assay, melt & coin any silver or gold coinage until they posted bonds to handle the bullion. This did not occur until well after 1792.
Just who did do the work is still up to debate, but somehow it was accomplished and some 1500 half dismes were struck, late in 1792. Are they patterns or regular coinage? There is evidence to call them either one.
QuarterNut
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
The "Mint of the United States" had been authorized by law. Its physical location was immaterial so long as the cognizant official (in this case the Secretary of State) approved. 1,500+/- half dimes is certainly a very modest beginning, and also an experiment as would be any first attempt at striking coins by the thousands. The pieces were evidently made with the intent to circulate, but the lack of follow-on is curious and certainly something to look forward to in the forthcoming book "1792: BIrth of a Nation's Coinage." (I'm certain it will be better than either movie by similar names.)
[Augsberger and Orosz are very reliable, experienced researchers and writers. Their book is a high quality product and almost certainly "Book of the Year" from the NLG in 2017.]
Let's reserve conclusions until their book is in print. Then all can read the author's thoughts and respond accordingly.
My normal research approach is to require at least two independent sources - the exception being if a source is the originator and their statement are consistent.
Some points are worth making with respect to the above discussions:
1) There was a known mintage of 1,500 half dismes in July 1792 but it is certain that additional coins were made. The total is presently not known, however.
2) The dates of the directors are sometimes in error as researchers occasionally confuse an appointment with Senate confirmation. Dr. R.M. Patterson, for example, actually arrived at the Mint in early July 1835 and served until June 30, 1851.
3) President Washington did not contribute silver towards the 1792 half disme coinage.
4) Records would have been kept of the 1792 half disme coinage but were lost long before 1830. The account book noted by Snowden as beginning in late July 1792 was almost certainly the second such book. It is possible that the first director, David Rittenhouse, took this first book with him when he left in June 1795.
5) The 1838 letter posted by RWB was used by Breen (in the 1950s) and others but this is the first time it has been published in this form.
6) It is likely that Snowden called the 1792 half disme a pattern because the records were missing and the available records did not show any coins delivered before March 1793.
7) The comparison of the 1802 half dime with the 1792 issue is not possible as the mintage of the 1802 coin is not known. (The Red Book number is based on a misunderstanding of the bullion records by Breen.)
8) It is true that bonds were not made for the 1792 coinage but as the officers and employees were under the direct control of the Secretary of State, there is little doubt that the 1792 half disme coinage was legal.
9) The first Director Patterson was in fact a close friend of Jefferson’s and his son (Dr. R.M. Patterson) also knew Jefferson personally. President Jefferson, for example, appointed the younger Patterson as an American consul in Paris in 1809.
This has been a great thread. I wasn't aware of the upcoming book referenced above "1792: BIrth of a Nation's Coinage." - that'll definitely be on my list to add to my library once available.
Excellent information, Denga. Thanks!
Some additional points with respect to the comments by afford:
1) Except for a vague remembrance from Adam Eckfeldt, made decades later,
there is no indication of Washington’s silver being used. In 1792 it was a near
certainty that Spanish dollars of a known fineness (.896) were used; that simplified
melting & refining. Silverware in those days, while generally sterling, varied to
some extent and this would have required careful and tedious assaying.
2) Jefferson deposited 75 Spanish dollars and received back 1,500 half dismes.
This is not technically possible and additional silver had to have been on hand
at the Mint for Jefferson to have received back this exact value. How many were
struck beyond the 1,500 is of course unknown.
3) The comment that Breen cannot be trusted is not true. Yes, he made errors
but overall his work is of great value. In any volume of work this broad there are
bound to be mistakes.
Points with respect to the above afford posting:
1) Sterling was the standard for silverware. The term “coin silver”
is meaningless as fineness varied all over the place for circulating
silver coinage. The standard for British silver was sterling but such
coins did not circulate in America.
2) The expense accounts for both Jefferson and Washington exist
and there is no hint – of any kind – that the President was involved
in the 1792 half disme coinage. It is also worth noting that the
President did not deposit any bullion at the Mint after 1792 for the
silver or gold coinage, but Jefferson did.
3) It has not been “proven” about Breen and trustworthiness. Modern
auction catalogues and even some highly-regarded references have
more than their share of errors. Does that mean neither source can
be trusted?
Wonderful thread!!! Fascinating!
Fascinatingly informative thread - thank you to the contributors.
- Ike Group member
- DIVa (Designated Ike Varieties) Project co-lead and attributor
Just as an aside regarding the 1792 half disme:
Many 1792 Half Dismes have what are described as "adjustment marks" by catalogers. Alan Weinberg mentioned to me that he thinks they are roller marks. Deep grooves left on the planchets due to a very primitive way of rolling out or drawing out the planchet strip. He doubts the need to adjust the weight of such a small coin.
I think "$75 D." must mean 75 Spanish dollars. If it was just silver it would have been in the weight of the silver.
The Half dime is a 1/20 of a dollar - a Spanish dollar to anyone around at the time.
The half disme would have competed in circulation with the 1/2 real which was a 1/16 of a dollar. It also was the first use of decimal accounting for coins in the US. (The Massachusetts cent and half cents had no dollar basis so I don't think they qualify as a decimal coinage.)
Some additional points on the latest afford posting:
1) The tern “coin silver” was not used in 1792 as .900 fine silver
coins were not used in America at that time. Sterling silverware
was just that, sterling. Prior to about 1750 British sterling coins were
readily available to silversmiths so that fineness was used for the
silverware. This standard continued in use although other silver
coins had to be used in later years.
2) The amount of fine silver in a Spanish dollar in 1792 was about
373 grains, not 394 as quoted by afford. One wonders where
afford got this wrong information.
3) Jefferson withdrew $100 from the Bank of the United States just
before depositing $75 at the Mint. The only circulating silver coinage
at that time in this country was Spanish.
4) Afford does not seem to understand that Breen’s lifestyle has
nothing to do with his numismatic work. Unlike afford I actually
knew Breen; Walter was well aware that I did not like his other
world but that has nothing to do with numismatics. The statement
by afford “and it is proven everything he wrote was absolutely not
factual at the time he wrote it” is nonsense.
5) If afford has documentary evidence that the President supplied
bullion to the Mint he should publish it. Guesses do not count.
The Mint accepted “plate” (silverware) on a regular basis once operations
had commenced for the silver coins. In the case of the half dismes, however,
it was much easier to use Spanish dollars. A small amount of copper was
added to the mixture, reducing the fineness from .896 to .892, the legal U.S.
Standard. Refining silverware of sterling fineness was much more difficult
and time-consuming. The dollars need not have been assayed; it was
necessary for the plate.
The accounts very plainly state that the $100 was from the Bank of the
United States. Jefferson was simply drawing against his salary as Secretary
of State. These withdrawals were made by a servant on a regular basis.
The President did not pay Jefferson’s salary.
You have, I assume, published your findings.
Are there errors in Breen? Of course, but far less than commonly
supposed. I have also seen “corrections” to Breen that were themselves
wrong and Breen right.
Nysoto:
Would "any subsequent Mint director" really have known the answer to the question, or have thought much about it? Were any of them interested in devoting at least three hours to researching and thinking carefully about the matter?
I have thought much about this topic. I wrote two articles about 1792 half dismes late in 2012 and have written much about other pre-1793 pieces, especially patterns
It is extremely unlikely that 1792 half dismes were intended for circulation or were thought of as a medium of exchange in 1792. At the time, the notion of a decimal monetary system was considered bizarre by those who thought about it at all. The British monetary system was characterized by threes, fives and twelves (4x3 = 12). The British thought especially in terms of multiples of three, as I noted in my recent article on Henry VIII Groats.
During the second half of the 18th century and at least the first third of the 19th century, people in North America (along with all the Americas and much of the world) thought of coins in the context of the Spanish Monetary system. In the U.S., Quarter-Real (3.125 cent) Half-Real (6.25 cent) and One Real (12.5 cent) coins circulated, along with Two Reales (25c cent) and Eight Reales (Spanish Milled Dollar) coins.
In either the Spanish or British systems, there was no room for one-tenth (of a Crown or a dollar) or one-twentieth (5c) coins, and most merchants would not have wanted them. Merchants and consumers who were interested in coins may have accepted them as novelty items or as numismatic pieces. In 1792, they would not have been accepted as coins and everyone probably knew this. They could not have then been coins. They were patterns used to advertise the planned U.S. monetary system.
Yes, 1792 half dismes did circulate as money, but probably not until after 1795, when more than a few people in the Middle-Atlantic states had become accustomed to half dimes. Even then, it was not a widely used denomination. 1882 Liberty Head nickels circulated, but they are not coins.
I explain additional reasons as to why 1792 half dismes are patterns, not coins, in the following article:
1792 Half Dismes, Part 1: Origins and Meaning
For some information on decimal system proposals and the Spanish Monetary system, please see:
PCGS Certfied U.S. 500 Unit Silver Pattern of 1783 (Type 2 Quint)
Some information about the origins of British coin denominations may be found in this recent article:
Affordable Fourpence Coins (Groats) of King Henry VIII?
Afford:
Many 18th century coins, tokens and medals were holed, and other round items were holed, too. If Afford is hypothesizing (or declaring?) that a larger percentage of 1792 half dismes than other contemporary numismatic items were holed, this would not be evidence that they are coins rather than patterns. If a very unusual item, clearly not a coin in 1792, is given out as a promotional item, the recipients might regard it as something special, something different from and perhaps greater than a coin, and decide to wear it to show to their friends.
Afford:
For years before 1792, Thomas Jefferson was a proponent, not just of coinage by the U.S. federal (national) government, but also of the U.S. developing a new monetary system, an economically efficient and different system, about which U.S. citizens would be proud. In contrast, most politicians and many citizens were against or skeptical about the formation of a U.S. Mint and would be, if they understood it, against a decimal monetary system, which would have seemed annoying or ridiculous. There was a lot of persuading that needed to be done, for both a U.S. decimal monetary system to be successful. In my article, I mention the point of impressing European governments, and Don Taxay clearly raises this point in his book on the History of the U.S. Mint, both works that Afford will hopefully read.
Returning to promoting and persuading U.S. citizens, the greatest quantity of silver patterns for a fixed amount of money would then have been half dismes, and Thomas Jefferson spent just $75, which I believe was his own money. Was it? Either way, $75 was not a vast sum, even for a "struggling nation"! Also, while some people would accept a 1792 half disme pattern as being worth five cents, as a novelty item, if its being handed to them by the SECRETARY of STATE, who was also a legend in his own time, in a more anonymous setting, these would not have served as coins in 1792.
Also, it would cost Jefferson only five cents each time he gave one away for free, to advertise the upcoming U.S. coinage. It would have been more expensive to give away silver quarter patterns for free, and quarter-patterns would not highlight the decimal system.
If the U.S. Mint was going to survive, there was a need for patterns to promote and advertise the Mint and the decimal system. In 1792, they might not used terms like marketing programs or promotional tools, but the purpose of the 1792 half disme patterns seems clear enough.
Afford:
I answered this question above, and in one of the cited articles. Briefly, many patterns have circulated, 1882 Liberty Head nickels and 1858 Indian cents come to mind. If all 1856 Flying Eagle cents are patterns, as is generally believed, they circulated to a considerable extent. There was a need then to advertise and promote small cents, as people were accustomed to large cents and half cents.
Returning to 1792 half dismes, they got around as promotional items to advertise and draw attention to the planned decimal coinage system. They circulated as money LATER, probably after 1795, when at least some people in the Middle-Atlantic States were accepting of half dimes as money, despite the fact that half dimes were inconsistent with the Spanish Empire coins then in circulation. Later in the 1790s, merchants would have reluctantly accepted half dimes as money; it is extremely unlikely that they would have done so in 1792 and the officials at the U.S. Mint probably knew this.
Afford:
Please read the pertinent article. A blueprint or a foundation for a house is a beginning of a house, but not a house itself. He was referring to a process, and he would not have been familiar with the term pattern as numismatists define it. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, Washington implied that it would be months before the U.S. Mint would be making coins. He refers to "measures [that] had been taken" and other polices that had yet to be implemented. It is important to read the whole passage, and not take one phrase out of context, and to understand that large cents were included in the draft for this speech, though 1792 large cents are also patterns not coins.
I explain additional reasons as to why 1792 half dismes are patterns, not coins, in the following article:
1792 Half Dismes, Part 1: Origins and Meaning
For some information on decimal system proposals and the Spanish Monetary system, please see:
PCGS Certfied U.S. 500 Unit Silver Pattern of 1783 (Type 2 Quint)
Insightful10@gmail.com
Kee-rist.
suc·cinct.
[sə(k)ˈsiNG(k)t]
ADJECTIVE
1.(especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed:
"use short, succinct sentences"
Boil it down to the point, boys.
Nobody read that. MHO.