Congress had a fierce debate in March 1792 regarding the use of the President's portrait on the coinage, and in the end opposed it. The colonies did not want a King. For an engraver to use his wife's portrait a few months later is unthinkable.
The question of the legality of the 1792 half disme coinage is an interesting one. The
law did require that the chief coiner and assayer each post $10,000 bonds before
beginning their work in the precious metals, gold and silver. The problem is more
complicated than appears on the surface, however. In point of law there was no
chief coiner or assayer at the Mint during 1792.
We speak of Chief Coiner Henry Voight as doing this or that during 1792 but in legal
terms he was not appointed to this office until January 1793. Until that date his job
was in limbo and perhaps chief coiner pro tem is the proper title.
On July 7, 1792, Attorney General Edmund Randolph, in response to an inquiry, stated
that the post of chief coiner was vacant. The timing of the opinion is obvious and came
just days before the mid-July coinage of half dismes. There is little doubt that this opinion
cleared the way for the half disme coinage.
The person who made the inquiry of Randolph? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson,
clearing the way for the coinage.
The point of a bond is to protect the government against loss. However, because there
was no chief coiner (in a legal sense) there could be no bond. What we then have is the
government striking the coins under the direct supervision of Secretary of State Thomas
Jefferson. That the bulk of the bullion was his does not affect the overall legal status of
the coinage, only the official control of the operations.
Now THAT picture bears a resemblance to the portrait on the Half Disme!
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.
While none of us have a real stake in these historical issues, this thread goes to prove that the book that was supposed to settle it all has only opened up the discussion further.
Comments
Congress had a fierce debate in March 1792 regarding the use of the President's portrait on the coinage, and in the end opposed it. The colonies did not want a King. For an engraver to use his wife's portrait a few months later is unthinkable.
The question of the legality of the 1792 half disme coinage is an interesting one. The
law did require that the chief coiner and assayer each post $10,000 bonds before
beginning their work in the precious metals, gold and silver. The problem is more
complicated than appears on the surface, however. In point of law there was no
chief coiner or assayer at the Mint during 1792.
We speak of Chief Coiner Henry Voight as doing this or that during 1792 but in legal
terms he was not appointed to this office until January 1793. Until that date his job
was in limbo and perhaps chief coiner pro tem is the proper title.
On July 7, 1792, Attorney General Edmund Randolph, in response to an inquiry, stated
that the post of chief coiner was vacant. The timing of the opinion is obvious and came
just days before the mid-July coinage of half dismes. There is little doubt that this opinion
cleared the way for the half disme coinage.
The person who made the inquiry of Randolph? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson,
clearing the way for the coinage.
The point of a bond is to protect the government against loss. However, because there
was no chief coiner (in a legal sense) there could be no bond. What we then have is the
government striking the coins under the direct supervision of Secretary of State Thomas
Jefferson. That the bulk of the bullion was his does not affect the overall legal status of
the coinage, only the official control of the operations.
How about this picture. The first time that I saw this picture I said " That is it !".
Now THAT picture bears a resemblance to the portrait on the Half Disme!
While none of us have a real stake in these historical issues, this thread goes to prove that the book that was supposed to settle it all has only opened up the discussion further.